The Science of Leadership: the Legal Industry and an Integrated Approach to Modern Organizational Leadership

Leadership is vital to making sense of the rapidly changing business environment that organizations find themselves in today.

Business sectors across the world
– including the legal industry – are experiencing accelerated disruptions and
unprecedented strategic challenges as a result of new technologies,
digitalization,[1]
new entrants and business models, globalization, intensifying competition and an
unpredictable geopolitical landscape. The relentless pace of change,
uncertainty, and “headwinds of new market realities” faced by these
organizations are the by-product of a digital economy fueled by disruptive
innovation, a world being reshaped by the Fourth Industrial Revolution
(Industry 4.0), and “the most complicated international political environment
in modern history”:[2]

“Disruption today is happening at a scale and speed that is unprecedented in modern history. From banking to retail, media, logistics, manufacturing, education, professional services, and life sciences, digital technologies and business models are upending industries around the globe, and leaders are struggling to cope.”

Leadership is important to
competing successfully in today’s hyper-competitive environment, and the ‘right
leadership’ is recognized as critical for organizations to thrive (if not just
survive) in the 21st century.[3]
Unfortunately, leadership for many organizations today is seen as their
“weakest link”,[4]
and there is a heightened concern for organizations across the world about the
quality of their internal leadership and whether they are adequately prepared
for the future.[5]

This recognition – that leadership
matters – and the ongoing escalation in the pace of change, uncertainty and
unpredictability has increased the demand for effective leaders.[6] As such, leaders who can successfully lead
integrated multi-disciplinary teams and networks, manage change, and reshape
their organizations are a respected and sought after commodity.[7]

Leadership is very much related to change. As the pace of change accelerates, there is naturally a greater need for effective leadership.

And this most certainly includes
lawyers and the legal industry. Roles
for lawyers as leaders in business, government and law firms are escalating. From
changing leadership roles at law firms and in-house legal departments, to more
non-traditional roles in the C-suite or “management, compliance, human
resources, entrepreneurship, and more, opportunities abound for lawyers
interested in taking on leadership opportunities within the intersection of law
and business”.[9]

However, there is more to
leadership than simply having a high-ranking title and being placed in charge
of a team, a department, or an organization. Rather, leadership is a skillset that
each of us can learn and develop if we so choose, whether we are an intern or a
CEO, an articling student or a managing partner, an in-house lawyer or General
Counsel. Breaking out of the “lawyerly comfort zone” and becoming a
leader ultimately means embracing self-reflection, education and training,
feedback, and practice[10]:[11]

“Developing agile leaders who are able to do seemingly incompatible things: be structured yet flexible, be agile yet process-oriented, drive for results yet put people and culture first. These are paradoxical leaders and there aren’t many of them.”

A leadership gap or deficit may have one of two causes: lack of mastery of the required competencies or lack of focus on necessary skills. The first is a matter of degree; the second is a matter of substance.

The key to leadership in the real
world is not blindly following some esoteric leadership theory, model or
practice all the time, but rather taking a more integrated approach to modern organizational
leadership that embraces recognizing, choosing and implementing the right thing
at the right time. Leadership can be learned, and “the best leaders are the
best learners”.[13] In
this respect, this article will review and discuss the merits of leadership
theory and practice, and their conscientious and judicious utilization “in
making decisions about leadership behaviours” in the legal workplace. An integrated
leadership approach acknowledges the intelligence, experience, and flexibility
required of legal leaders on the front-lines “who are motivated to navigate
their way through their daily maze”[14]:[15]

“Leadership is like the right key sliding into the right lock. Sometimes leadership requires adamant inflexibility, as when Churchill resisted the Nazis, and sometimes it requires endless agility, as when President Roosevelt continuously improvised to get his New Deal off the starting blocks. Sometimes an effective leader must be cautious and appreciative of the wisdom of existing arrangements, and sometimes a leader must be audacious and willing to crack eggs. Sometimes leadership requires cunning, sometimes confidence. Context is everything.”

[H]igh-quality leadership enables employees to place more trust in their leaders and it is predominately this trust that … serves to mediate the effects of leadership on outcomes; some have referred to this as a ‘downstream’ effect of leadership. … [H]igh-quality leaders help people think differently about themselves and their work and improve the quality of the leader-follower relationship.

In today’s complex,
interconnected and fast-paced world, it takes a great team to be
successful. And yes, leadership is still
about mobilizing personnel in an organization around common goals to achieve
impact at scale. However, in most cases this requires an organization’s
leadership to lead from a place of influence instead of hierarchical authority
– building and empowering high functioning collaborative teams and networks
that can learn, identify opportunities, solve problems, and embrace
entrepreneurial thinking and innovation[17]
in rapidly changing business environments.

Strong leadership is a key pillar
of sustainable success for every organization, and leadership development[18]is a necessity for today’s leaders to address “business challenges” that require
a flexible style of leadership depending on the situation and context. Sophisticated
organizations understand that to survive they need leaders with enhanced leadership
skills and organizational capabilities from those that helped them succeed in
the past.[19]What worked yesterday may not work today, and those leaders best prepared
to adjust will be well positioned to make a positive impact for their
organization and their own career.[20]

Many of the practices and approaches we use in guiding and leading and structuring our organizations are more relatable to the industrial revolution of the past few centuries than they are the hyper-fast, technology and data-driven and interconnected world of today and tomorrow. The pursuit of [leadership and] management excellence and … innovation is imperative in today’s world.

Introduction

As organizations seek innovative
solutions to the challenging business and economic environment, the role of
leadership has been identified as pivotal, and considerable strides have been
made in understanding the process through which leadership (and leadership
theories and behaviours) influence organizations, teams and individuals, and
under what conditions the effects of leadership are heightened or minimized.[22]

So, what is leadership and why do
organizational leaders for law firms, in-house legal departments, and
corporations matter? There are hundreds of research studies published every
year on leadership, and there is no shortage of books and articles describing
organizational leadership. In fact,
there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are commentators,
academics and researchers who have written on the topic, and – not surprisingly
– inconsistency abounds across definitions.
But, three things are clear: high-quality leadership is a key factor for
(1) managing change, uncertainty and challenging organizational situations, (2)
embedding a collaborative innovative corporate culture and engaging employee
commitment[23]
across organizational boundaries, and (3) cultivating deliberative and emergent
strategic management[24]
and adept sustainable organizational performance for the organization and its
broader ecosystem.[25]

Uncertainty and change are
‘givens’ in a digital economy fueled by disruptive innovation,[26]
and with the foundations of the legal services industry in flux, legal leaders
(similar to all organizational leaders today) are faced with increasingly
serious challenges involving their business model and organizational
structures,[27] corporate
culture, profitability and cost effectiveness, running efficiently, recruiting
and retaining talent,[28]
and keeping up with and utilizing the latest technology. All of this combined
with the rise of the client-empowered era, where corporate clients demand
services be faster, better, simpler and cheaper, is forcing the legal industry
to take note of the fact that “staying the course” is not the answer, rather they
need to promote collaboration and innovation,[29]
and to do so, they need to understand, cultivate, and develop enhanced leadership
thinking, practices and skillsets:[30]

“The new kind of leader now demanded by a transformed legal profession is not readily forthcoming, however. Legal culture stresses individualism and independence, which is reinforced by firm governance, practice management, and performance management systems that are ill-suited to foster supportive and collaborative leadership practices; lawyers are trained and conditioned to be combative, autonomous, and didactic. To position oneself as a contender in a fast-moving and competitive market, the legal leader of the future must push back against these trends by acting strategically, engaging in people management, investing in their employees, and creating a working environment that places emphasis on communication, teamwork, and growth and development. …

While it is necessary to do good work and be skilled in your practice – something lawyers hear frequently – it is not enough. The characteristics that will distinguish you in the leadership of your career, and especially if you currently lead or aspire to effectively lead others, are emotional intelligence, a leadership mindset, and influential communication.”

A senior legal leader – Chief
Legal Officer, General Counsel, managing partner, or other decision-maker – by
definition make decisions. But as a senior legal leader, lawyers moving up the
organizational chart are no longer just making decisions for a small team or
just themselves. Senior legal leaders are responsible for weighing the
organization’s strategy, execution capabilities and potential risks, and
thinking not just about their personal success but about the organization’s
overall performance.[32] Senior legal leaders need to
identify and respond to “tomorrow’s challenges today”, to be pro-active as much
as possible in a rapidly changing environment, and to make judgment calls and
build consensus in ambiguous and even unprecedented situations.[33] That shift in thinking – “from a
singular to a 360-degree perspective of the organization” and its lawyers and
employees – is what differentiates senior leaders and executives:[34]

“This means that, as [a senior legal leader or] executive, you need to constantly find ways to connect different parts of the organization, leverage new capabilities, and achieve something that linear thinking could not. You’re what the military calls a force multiplier – someone who dramatically increases the effectiveness of a team. Your job is to create new value, disrupt your environment and push the limits. It’s not for the faint of heart.

You are also starting with a blank canvas. When you’re a manager or individual contributor, your goals are usually handed down to you and shared across your team. As [a senior legal leader or] executive, your role is to paint a clear picture of where you want to take your team or organization, and drive that vision with energy and conviction. You [and the leadership team] create the road map.

The skills cited as most
indispensable for senior leaders and executives are those that jointly
constitute leadership.[35]
Unfortunately, far too many leaders in law firm, in-house, or corporate
management don’t have the necessary leadership and management skill-sets or training
(let alone the financial literacy to even understand the categories on their organization’s
balance sheet). That should not happen in law firms with $100,000 in annual
revenue or BigLaw firms with $100,000,000, much less within national and
multinational corporations and their in-house legal departments:[36]

“Most law firms are led by attorneys who have never been formally trained to manage others. … even the best lawyer can turn out to be a terrible leader. “You can’t manage using lawyer skills … management is entirely different than the practice of law.” …

Many firms, though, have begun to offer leadership training to help partners and senior associates learn the management skills law school didn’t teach them, yet it does not appear to be a top priority.

[As some] law schools — [such as] Harvard and Georgetown [and the University of Toronto[37] and University of Calgary[38]] — have recognized this training gap, and have launched programs to teach their law students business skills. In addition to a heavy focus on building leadership, teamwork, and collaboration skills to help attorneys “make the shift from lawyer to leader”.

[P]ractitioners have long resisted training in leadership, which they dismiss as a “soft skill.” Yet research makes clear that such skills are often the hardest to acquire and the most essential to effective management. That is particularly the case for leaders of lawyers, a group that values autonomy and is well schooled in challenging authority. … [A] study … found that the most powerful predictor of large-firm profitability is “the quality of partners’ leadership skills … Our profession prides itself on teaching new entrants to “think like lawyers.” We also need them to “think like leaders.”

Despite a great deal of ‘lip
service’ being paid to the leadership skillset, the legal industry is woefully
short of well-trained legal leaders and limited resources are actually
dedicated to this skill development. Yes, the legal industry has its leadership
superstars who are bright, engaging, and ethical. But there continues to be many blind spots
concerning the importance of leadership (collaboration, inspiring and guiding
personnel to contribute to the greater health and growth of the organization; vision
and innovation; strategic and emergent / entrepreneurial thinking[40][41]; strategic
management re strategy formulation, implementation and evaluation in a changing
and uncertain environment; etc.).[42] And the underutilization of leadership
training and education – and basic financial literacy – has been holding back
the management and growth of the legal industry for decades. The problem is the
lack of formal and ‘on the job’ training. Even today most lawyers have limited
to no formal training on leadership, business, accounting, or finance at any
point in their education or careers. Law schools do not generally require mandatory
leadership and business classes, with the unfortunate assumption that lawyers
will learn the leadership and business side of the practice on the job, whether
in law firms or corporate or government in-house legal departments. The legal academy has come late to these
efforts (compared with the schools of business, medicine, nursing, etc.),[43]
with some sterling exceptions, but even today unfortunately:[44]

“Most law schools continue to focus on doctrinal law and how to “think like a lawyer.” Their curricula are light on practice skills, marketplace changes, and business of law skills. …

Fortunately, there are a handful of training programs and international law schools that are paving the way for the legal industry’s future whose contours are being shaped. … LawWithoutWalls is a part-virtual experiential learning program designed for practicing and aspiring lawyers. LWOW, powered by the University of Miami Law School and ably led by Michele DeStefano, uses team building, mentorship, and an interdisciplinary approach to forge collaborative relationships for participants. … LWOW provides participants with skills required of today’s lawyers and legal professionals-teamwork, communication, leadership, mentoring, project management, innovation, cultural competency, business planning, technology, and networking. … It has teamed with an impressive array of law firms, in-house legal departments, law schools, and global corporations to create an “everyone wins” response to the industry’s skills gap; participants acquire skills and sponsors acquire actionable knowledge and access to candidates with relevant skillsets.”

Are law schools in Canada pumping out lawyers without the skills they need?… ‘Canadian Lawyer’ [magazine] spoke to several deans to find out what is actually happening at the law schools and why the pace of change is not as fast for both critics and deans alike.

By the time lawyers graduate out of university and into
their first years as lawyers, most spend so much time just trying to “stay
above water” that there is no time, or incentive, to dig down and learn the
finer points of leadership or business. Many lawyers tend to “just pick
up what they have to, when they have to, and muddle along on a piecemeal basis
until they need to learn some new tidbit to muddle a little further”.[46]

Legal leaders and management need
to ensure their organizations are lean, efficient, and intelligent to survive in
the new economy, something that will be impossible to do if they do not know or
understand the basic principles of leadership and financial management. Fortunately,
in today’s business environment many BigLaw and in-house leadership teams are
adopting the leadership and financial analytics tools that have long been
commonplace in the broader business world.[47]
In assessing leaders at every level in an organization – in particular for
cross-enterprise leadership in complex national and global business organizations
– three questions should consistently be considered:[48]

Do they have the competencies and
skillsets to be a leader – strategic, business, organizational and people?[49]
Do they have the knowledge, skills, the understanding of key concepts,
judgement, and relationships that they need to do the job effectively?

Do they have the commitment to be a leader?
Although they aspire to be a leader, are they prepared to do the hard
work of leadership, engage with others in fulfilling the organizational
mission, achieve the vision and deliver on the goals?

Do they have the character to be a
good leader and strive to be an even better one?[50]
Do they have the values and virtues that others – shareholders, partners,
executives, employees, customers / clients, suppliers, regulators and the
broader society within which they operate – will use to determine if they are
good leaders?

Does leadership training work? The overwhelming evidence is that it is very effective. Leadership training is a 4 billion dollar industry and our law profession lags behind almost every other profession in being trained in leadership. … [T]he most powerful predictor of law firm profitability is “the quality of partners’ leadership skills.”

In this new normal, legal leaders
and their organizations will benefit from “non-traditional” skills (i.e. leadership
and soft skills, business leadership, change leadership, business planning,
process improvement, project management, technology and data, design thinking,
risk management), but also greater diversity in knowledge, experience and
competencies. It is important for lawyers to develop and refine their
leadership skills so that they “can not only manage the changes happening in
the legal industry, but also lead change for the legal team and for the
company”.[52]
And, while understanding modern leadership theories is important, the
“challenge that looms larger for practicing leaders” is “how such a collection
of complex ideas, lofty values, and imposing behaviours can be translated into
daily workplace reality”.[53]

The central function of
leadership is to achieve an organization’s collective purpose. Organizations and
their leaders must align strategy, coordinate operations, manage teams, and –
in light of the new realities and challenges of the modern economy – leverage
synergies across increasingly complex and distributed organizational structures.
High-performing organizations are transforming their organizational structures
and operating differently today, shifting away from the traditional “top down” hierarchical
based industrial-age models developed in the 20th century, and embracing
new “team based” organizational structures (i.e. organizational networks,
ecosystems, etc.) redesigned for speed, agility, adaptability, information
sharing and collaboration, innovation and growth:[54]

“Dealing with uncertainty is the number one challenge and, as the cliché goes, it’s the number one opportunity too. If your company isn’t the disruptor, it’s a clear sign that it’s about to be disrupted. The bottom line is that the [strict traditional] hierarchical management mode is no longer suited for the challenges of the modern economy. Every pillar of a traditional organization is now in flux … Contextual awareness, peripheral vision, design thinking and a multi-disciplinary approach – these are all terms that are trending in modern office-speak.”

Flatter hierarchies, matrix and
network structures, ecosystems, and cross-functional teams are increasingly
common within organizations, meaning leaders must often work with people over
whom they do not have formal authority.[55]
To inspire confidence and trust that is needed to succeed as an organization,
leaders must not only be strategic and emergent / entrepreneurial thinkers, but
must also know how to lead with purpose and values, build a collaborative
environment, navigate and adapt to change, and operationalize deliberative and
emergent strategy across functional and organizational boundaries. In these
times of uncertainty and change, the best leaders lead through influence
(collaborative ‘coordinate and cultivate’ leadership) as opposed to the power
of their position (heroic ‘command and control’ leadership).[56]
Influence is an essential part of leadership today, a critical competency for
every leader at every level in an organization:[57]

“Leadership [may be seen] as a collective social process leading to direction, alignment, and commitment toward the organization’s or group’s goals. In reality, groups or teams consist of individual people with different values, needs, visions, and agendas. As we convince and persuade others around us—bosses, peers, direct reports, superiors, partners, clients, vendors, other divisions—influence is occurring continuously at the workplace. …

Influencing is soft or personal power, independent of one’s positional power. … The position of a leader in an organization and the power it gives are not enough to motivate or inspire people. A leader promotes or sells his or her ideas or the ideas of those that he or she represents. This is particularly important in today’s organizations, which have become less hierarchical and less dependent on individual heroes.”

As this new type of organization takes hold, working in teams [and ecosystems] will likely become the norm in business, and dynamism will become an organizational hallmark. Building and supporting teams [and ecosystems] will be leaders’ principal tasks. Software to help companies benefit from teaming may also become standard.

In an increasingly complex and
changing world, leadership involves ensuring that organizational vision, culture,
values, purpose, and strategies are in place, aligned, remain appropriate, and
the business sustainable. Appropriate leadership and decision making
acumen is imperative in addressing fundamental organizational issues, from managing
change to business strategy to people to risk management – but just as
importantly, encouraging learning, thinking, and innovative action on an
ongoing basis.

There is ascribed an “increasing
prominence to leadership in explaining ever-higher levels of organizational
performance, but” ineffectual leadership is also “the cause of poor
organizational performance”.[59]
In respect to the legal industry, many traditional law firms and in-house legal
departments fail to “innovate and think outside of the box”, to support and
provide leadership and business training. They simply respond and mimic the
actions of other law firms and legal departments. Why? Founded on a model of
precedent and continuity, too often BigLaw and traditional legal organizations
stifle their leaders and innovators, focusing on “staying the course” during
this time of rapid change and uncertainty.[60]
Legal leaders need to be innovative leaders with creative client solutions. And
successful law firms, legal departments, and legal organizations must have
sound focused business strategies and competent leadership, and their
operations must encompass a multidisciplinary approach and be led and managed
by ‘professional managers’ trained and educated in leadership and management
fundamentals.[61] It
is unwise to teach leaders that leadership, strategy and basic management are
unrelated – operational excellence and management must be treated as crucial
complement to leadership.[62]

To thrive in a dynamic,
uncertain, and fast-changing world, all organizations – but in particular
knowledge-based organizations – need agile, digitally savvy, and
effective leaders at all levels, and they need them now: from
top executives to first-time managers, and everyone in between[63]:[64]

“There is … a growing recognition that leadership development should not be restricted to the few who are in or close to the C-suite. With the proliferation of collaborative problem-solving platforms and digital “adhocracies” that emphasize individual initiative, employees across the board are increasingly expected to make consequential decisions that align with corporate strategy and culture. It’s important, therefore, that they be equipped with the relevant technical, relational, and communication skills.”

[A] recent Harvard Business Review Article … boldly claims that good management is absolutely crucial and is every bit as important as leadership. Firms with strong managerial processes and highly skilled managers perform significantly better. … [N]either great Leadership nor brilliant strategy matters without operational excellence. And that is the absolute crux of the matter. Leadership in professional services firms is vital, clearly. … But this cannot work effectively without great management, because management is about maximising individual and collective performance.

One thing that becomes clearer
every year is that the “all-encompassing digital world” is making it
increasingly harder to concentrate at the level needed to get work done[66]
– especially at the leadership level where the continuum is from “zero
leadership literacy” to being overwhelmed with “numerous leadership theories
and an enormous body of empirical research”. Developing everyday
leadership behaviours from theories with titles as lofty as “transformational
leadership”, “servant leadership”, or “authentic leadership” is nothing short
of intimidating.[67]
To lead successfully today requires a specific set of leadership competencies
and behaviors that mesh with the demands of our times:[68]

“Notably, leaders today need to apply a different set of leadership competencies, augmenting traditional leadership competencies to successfully navigate their organisations through the rapid changes underpinned by new business models, increasing customer complexities, millennial labour force and the ‘internet of everything’ that we are experiencing with the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). Leaders need to be able to work across boundaries to bring together disparate and diverse sets of people, processes, and technologies and reconfiguring them in real time to increase the likelihood of organization survival – responsive, resilient and agile. The rapid, exponential and disruptive technology is driving swift and sweeping global shifts in social, economic and political systems at a rate and scale that is quickly outstripping leadership’s ability to keep up. …

Leadership theories have evolved over the past 70 years from the “great man” notion of heroic leaders, through trait theories, behaviourist theories, situational leadership, contingency theory and on to transactional and transformational leadership. Each of these offers some insights into the qualities of successful leaders, but there has been a shift in focus from the generic characteristics and behaviours of the individual to a recognition of the importance of responding to different situations and contexts and the leaders’ role in relation to followers. …

The pressure is high for everyone with large amounts of responsibility and in leadership positions to “upgrade” their leadership competencies. … What are the skills future generations will need?”

While the focus of recent publications reveals the need for a “new” leadership style and approach, this does not mean that the previous leadership skills are no longer necessary. Quite the contrary: traditional leadership skills – such as the ability to effectively lead, manage, and inspire others – are now considered a bare minimum requirement.

The lesson to be identified is
that while theories of leadership may be complex, the best exemplification of
leadership in the real world is structured to the circumstances actually
encountered – with the understanding that the best of leadership involves
guiding people, teams and organizations how to communicate and work with one
another effectively (which is often seen in the smallest behaviours enacted at
the right time and for the right reasons).[70]
The realm of leadership theory is intended to be the practising leader’s toolshed,
and it is the responsibility of leaders on the frontline to understand the range
of leadership tools and to know when and how to apply them[71]:[72]

“Again, not only is leadership needed, but the right type of leadership is needed now more than ever. The right type of leadership is collaborative leadership. While this is not the only type of leadership needed, it plays a disproportionate role among them all.”

The strict “command-and-control” hierarchical
style of leadership utilized extensively in the 20th century is no longer
effective in today’s fast paced knowledge-based digital economy. In short, the
pace of change is outstripping the ability of organizations exercising
traditional leadership practices – that evolved primarily for stable
predictable environments that are rapidly disappearing – to keep up. To meet the unpredictable rapidly changing
demands of the 21st century, the right organizational leadership model
for many organization’s today will involve some variation of collaborative and
inclusive leadership (which are echoed in transformational leadership theory[73]
for example).

Many academics and commentators
have pointed to a balanced transformational approach to leadership – exercising
influence over authority, but embracing both inclusive and directive styles of
leadership depending on the situation and context – as an effective
collaborative approach across all levels of performance (i.e. organizational,
team, and individual), and as particularly relevant to fast-paced knowledge-based
industries “where innovation and agility can make or break a company”.[74]
Traditional notions of leadership must evolve, and collaborative and inclusive
leadership theories and styles draw on assorted capabilities and approaches to
leadership, and may be a distinct advantage for many organizations today with
its focus on empowering people, shared goals, innovation, and solving problems
in an ever-changing environment.[75]

Leadership will need to play a
more critical role in organizations today and going forward if law firms,
in-house legal departments and corporations are to adeptly anticipate and
skillfully manage change (whether such change represents opportunities or
threats). For those legal organizations that have not adopted a leadership approach,
it is critical to transition to a comprehensive leadership approach as a normal
way of doing business; particularly given the rapid pace of change and
increased uncertainty facing organization’s across the board and at all levels.

A recent Harvard Business Review article put it well when they said that “leadership styles have their times as well as their places” and went on to propose that certain styles may be more favourable when there is both ambiguity and opportunity – such as what we see in digital transformation.

Rethinking the Language of Leadership – towards an integrated approach

A constant tension exists in the
leadership community between the supposed disparate worlds of theory and
practice,[77]and
even today there is no universal agreed paradigm for leadership or framework
for studying it.[78] Different
viewpoints have been explored, and multiple schools of thought defined, likely
in response to turbulent environments and a more nuanced approach to seeing
organizational terrain. Esoteric debates about the ‘true’ nature of leadership
– often impenetrable to most practitioners – have emerged over the years, many
when the world moved at a much slower pace than today (an era where many
organizations are having difficulty keeping up with the rapidity of change).

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

There are now so many varied views of
leadership (theories, competencies and styles) it has become hard to be sure of
what we mean when we use the term. Researchers and practitioners have
been trying to define leadership for more than a century without universal
consensus – there is no widely accepted framework for thinking about
leadership.[80]
The many definitions of leadership have focused on group process leadership,
skills approach, behavior approach, trait approach, situational approach, and
many more. The bottom line “is that leadership is a complex concept for which a
determined definition may long be in flux”[81]:[82]

“Of all the hazy and confounding areas … leadership theory undoubtedly contends for top nomination. And, ironically, probably more has been written and less known about leadership than about any other topic …. Always, it seems, the concept of leadership eludes us or turns up in another form to taunt us again with its slipperiness and complexity. So we have invented an endless proliferation of terms to deal with it … and still the concept is not sufficiently defined. The dialectic and reversals of emphasis in the area ….”

There is little consistent
agreement on what defines a leader, with over 1500 definitions and forty
distinctive theories.[83]
Leadership theories have been the source of numerous studies in the past 60
years alone, with “as many as 65 different classification systems” developed in
this time period “to define the dimensions of leadership”.[84] The
integrity of organizations, be it at the local or international levels is
inextricably linked to not only leadership theory, competencies and styles but
the reasons why people want to be leaders.

Overall, it appears today that
leadership theory has become more comfortable with an eclectic approach, but one
that recognizes that leadership is a complex, interactive process with
behavioural, technical, relational, and situational elements. Each approach has
its pros and cons, however no one leadership theory or style is ‘best’ in all
situations. Indeed, only with an integrative framework – tying the best of the
different leadership approaches together – will it be possible to make a
coordinated effort in understanding and effectively implementing leadership
theories, competencies and styles (including strategic management) into a
leaders practice based toolkit.

Leadership is a multi-faceted
subject and it is a mixture of many factors that help determine why some people
develop into effective leaders in practice. It is not one leadership model that
is important (although many leadership theories have conclusions and
implications that may be overlapping if not complementary), but more that the
lessons learned from the various leadership theories, competencies and styles can
and should be integrated and adapted to the actual ‘real world’ circumstances
presented – incorporating an emergent approach as well as evaluation and
learning – to ensure continued relevancy to the organization (i.e. structure,
culture, and needs) and any current or pending strategic change initiatives to
be implemented (i.e. type, breadth, size, origin, etc.).[85]

He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards a ship without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast.

Leadership: A Learned Skillset

A leader’s singular job is to get
results. But even with all the leadership training programs and
“expert” advice available, effective leadership still eludes many
people and organizations. Leadership is a learned skillset, and with the
proper motivation, education, training and accumulation of relevant experience
one can learn to be an effective leader. Leaders are made, not born.

Why is this important? In the
digital age, leaders must be prepared to continuously learn and reset their
practices and views. Continuous learning – the rising tide that lifts all boats[87]
– and adaptability are essential ingredients for sustainable organizational leadership
and success.

When it comes to leadership, competencies determine what a person can do. Commitment determines what they want to do, and character determines what they will do.

It helps to be acquainted with
the different major theories (i.e. a set of ideas intended to explain why a
certain system is behaving the way it does) and styles of leadership (i.e. the
nature or manner in how a theory is applied) because the variety of different
perspectives deepens and enriches our understanding of leadership in general.[89] Understanding the various theories and styles to leadership is an
important foundation for long term sustainable success, including the two big
picture paradigms in which leaders work (i.e. transactional and
transformational) and that leadership is ‘situational’ in nature (i.e. the best
leaders utilize a variety of leadership approaches and styles). With
training and hands on practice leaders can learn to identify and utilize
various leadership theories, competencies and styles to produce powerful
results, thus turning the art of leadership into a science[90]:[91]

“Management experts devise leadership theories to identify what makes successful leaders excel, how they evaluate options and why they make adjustments. These experts define leadership style, on the other hand, to explain how the traits and behavior[al and technical competencies] of leaders enable them to function successfully under specific circumstances. Understanding both theory and style helps you learn to respond appropriately under stress and choose the best action as an effective leader.”

Leadership theories – including
(1) trait theories, (2) behavioral theories, (3) contingency theories, and (4)
power and influence theories – have been utilized to explain why some leaders are
effective and others are not. Trait theories identify the qualities associated
with successful leaders (i.e. integrity, assertiveness and empathy), while
behavioral theories define how leaders function. Contingency theories look to
predict which leadership style works best in which situation, while power
theories examine how influence impacts successful leadership:[92]

“Applying the right leadership theory [and style] in your … business depends on what you want to achieve. By aligning your behavior with your strategic goals, you can focus on learning more about the theories [and styles] that make the most sense for your company.”

[L]eadership style falls under the overall umbrella of leadership theory.

Leadership style focuses on the
behaviour of leaders – such as visionary, coaching, collaborative, consensus,
pacesetting and commanding – and describes the actions leaders take with personnel
to achieve short and long term goals. Typically, everyone in the organization
uses a leadership style at one point or another during their day. Applying
leadership style effectively to a situation involves a comprehensive initial
assessment, consideration of alternatives and actions, and an evaluation of the
outcome. Effective leaders learn from their mistakes and adjust their style in
subsequent occasions[94]:[95]

“The key to successful leadership lies in adaptability. Leaders must be flexible and effortlessly move from one leadership style to another to meet the changing requirements of organizations and employees. A good leader knows how and when to change his or her style to suit every situation. … Today’s leaders can’t lead solely by asserting power but must adopt different styles depending on organizational and employee circumstances. [For example, during a transition to a new way of working, an effective leader typically chooses a visionary style to enthusiastically communicate the future state, describe the need for change and motivate subordinates to follow his example. Using a commanding style in this instance tends to disenfranchise employees and contribute to low morale, decreased productivity and poor employee retention rates]. …

When you match your style to workplace dynamics, you accomplish your goals more efficiently. No one leadership style fits every situation. The best style will be the one you match with particular circumstances and people. The most successful leaders seamlessly switch among different leadership styles.”

As our world and the nature of work fundamentally changes, leaders must consider necessary new skills and accompanying mindset shifts.

Some people may be born leaders
(doubtful), but most of us have the ability to develop into leaders over time
with education and training. The core of that development – and becoming an
effective leader – is understanding and appropriately utilizing some of today’s
common leadership theories, competencies, and styles. In addition,
although leadership is arguably one of the most observed yet least understood
phenomena, “trust” is always a key element to positions of leadership whether
in business, government, military or international organizations. Whatever
theory of leadership and style relied upon, no one can by an effective leader
without trust – “you can have a compelling vision, rock-solid strategy,
excellent communication skills, innovative insight, and a skilled team, but if
people don’t trust you, you will never get the results you want”.[97] Trust is the foundation
for organizational and leadership success, it is the “heart of an individual’s
relationship with an institution” and “its leadership”.[98] Trust – the currency
of influence built from competence (good judgement / expertise), consistency
(role model: integrity, fairness, character; walk the talk: credibility; reliability),
and sincerity (positive relationships) – does not come easy and it does not happen
by accident, but rather through advanced leadership and communication that
leaders must continually work to maintain[99]:[100]

“[T]rust is a forward-looking metric. Unlike reputation, which is based on an organization’s [and leader’s] historical behavior, trust is a predictor of whether stakeholders will find you credible in the future, will embrace new innovations you introduce and will enthusiastically support or defend you.”

Great leaders choose their leadership styles like a golfer chooses a club, with a calculated analysis of the matter at hand, the end goal and the best tool for the job.

Four Core Leadership Theory Groups

Leadership theories is the place
to start to gain an understanding of what leadership means.[102]

Leadership theories seek to
explain how and why certain people become effective leaders and others do not –
they are schools of thought to explain how and why individuals become leaders, leadership
performance, and the relevant behavioural and technical leadership competencies
that contribute to effective leadership and that can be learned.[103] Although various leadership
theories take quite different perspectives, many of their conclusions and
implications may be seen to be complementary and overlapping. However, to date,
the various leadership theories have not been adeptly drawn together into an
overarching model of leader effectiveness.[104]

Over time several core groups of
theories about the foundations of good leadership have emerged. For the purpose
of this article, and ease of discussion, we will place these theories into four
main categories: (1) Trait theories; (2) Behavioral theories; (3) Contingency
theories; and (4) Power and influence theories of leadership.[105]
Please note that the various theories of leadership can be put into any
combination of categories and styles, with many popular articles using a top
ten format.[106]

Leadership literature reveals
that theories have been refined and modified with the passage of time and that none
of the theories are completely irrelevant,[107]
with many providing a template for consideration, thinking and consistent
conscious leadership development.[108]
Overall, leadership effectiveness is best defined as a set of competencies –
particular behaviours and skills that can be learned, practiced and mastered.

As noted, there are many theories
of leadership, but one of the most well-researched in the modern era may be the
concept of transformational leadership. Transformational leadership (located
under the ‘power and influence theories’ of leadership) is – from my
perspective – one of the most effective leadership theories to use in many, if
not most, business situations today involving fast-paced knowledge-based
industries and organizations. Transformational leaders are emotionally
intelligent (i.e. perceive and manage both their own emotions and those of
others), show integrity, are inclusive and collaborative, and capable of
developing a robust and inspiring vision of the future. They motivate and
engage people to achieve this vision, they manage its delivery, and they build
stronger and more successful innovative teams.

Assuming you accept this
proposition (and not everyone does), nevertheless, to be an effective leader it
is important to understand each of the core group of leadership theories, and
the tools and models associated with each one. In business – and most aspects
of life – it is often necessary for leaders and managers to adapt their approach
and style to fit a specific group or situation, and this is why strong leaders
have a thorough understanding of leadership theories, competencies, and styles.
The goal of this article is to show how traditional ideas of leadership needs
to evolve into a more thoughtful integrated theory and practice of leadership.

Most theories view leadership as grounded in one or more of the following three perspectives: leadership as a process or relationship, leadership as a combination of traits or personality characteristics, or leadership as certain behaviors or, as they are more commonly referred to, leadership skills.

1. Trait Theories – What Type of
Person Makes a Good Leader?

Trait theories postulate that the
traits of leadership are intrinsic, and that effective leaders share a number
of common personality characteristics or “traits.” Trait theories
explore the characteristics of a good leader, and look to identify traits and
qualities that are helpful when leading others (i.e. integrity, empathy,
assertiveness, good decision-making skills, likability).

The trait leadership theorists
believe that people are either born or are made with certain qualities that
help to excel in leadership roles. That is, certain qualities such as
intelligence, ability, motivation, sense of responsibility, personality,
creativity and other inherent characteristics puts people with these traits in
the shoes of a good leader. Many studies have analyzed the traits among existing
leaders with the goal of uncovering those responsible for leadership abilities.
A shortcoming of this theory is that there are so many leadership traits that
work, it is hard to narrow down a single set of traits, and that although
certain traits certainly support leadership (i.e. character, empathy), we now
understand that leadership can be learned (by education and training).

A recent school of thought suggests
that “contrary to popular belief, strength of character can indeed be
developed”. This is important because “character matters to effective
leadership and organizational performance” – after all, organizational culture
is largely a reflection of the character and guidance of its leaders:[110]

“For better or worse, character is contagious. And because character begets character, developing strength of character at the top can pay dividends across all levels because a truly high-performing leader sets the tone for a high-performing organization.”

Similarly, other studies have
shown that traits such as empathy[111]
and personality[112]
may not be as hard-wired as previously accepted.

In any event, personal traits may
help someone on the way to becoming a good leader, but industry knowledge,
experience, training, and a willingness to acquire leadership competencies and skills
are essential for success as an effective leader.[113]

The conventional wisdom – that leadership is a skill – remains largely true. So although there is some evidence natural traits might help leaders, it’s only a small part of the picture.

2. Behavioral Theories – What
Does a Good Leader Do?

Behavioral theories of
leadership are a big leap from trait theories, in that they take the
position that leadership capability can be learned, rather than being inherent.[115]

Behavioral theories focus on how
leaders behave. For example, do leaders dictate what needs to be done and
expect cooperation? Or do they involve their teams in decision-making to
encourage acceptance and support? Understanding the different approaches can
help one decide how to behave as a leader.
The implication of the behavioral theories is that one can learn to be a
leader (i.e. leaders are made, not born) by studying the behaviors of leaders
(not just their traits), and look to apply them in practice in various fields
of work.[116]

The behavioural theories divided
leadership in two categories – those concerned with tasks and those concerned
with people. Throughout the literature these are referred to by different
names, but the essence is the same (note: sometimes different terms have been
used to refer to the same type of behaviour. Other times the same term has been
defined differently by various theorists. What is treated as a general
behaviour category by one theorist may be viewed as two or three distinct
categories by another theorist. What may be a key concept in one taxonomy is
absent from another. etc).[117]
Big picture, various theories broadly included under this heading focus “on the
specific behaviors and actions of leaders rather than their traits or
characteristics”. The spotlight here is how leaders ‘behave’ affects their
performance, an important element not covered by trait leadership theories.

There is also an acknowledgement
of the significance of certain necessary leadership skills.[118]
The “Skills theories” suggest “that effective leadership is the result of many
learned skills”,[119]
and these theorists look for certain skill sets – technical skills, people
skills, and conceptual skills – within a leader that make the leader successful
(and may be seen from a big picture perspective as a necessary development and
consequence of the Behavioural Theories of leadership).[120]
Together they embrace behavioural and technical leadership competencies, and
see leadership in terms of capabilities or competencies that can be learned.

In reaction to the ‘leaders are
born’ trait leadership theory, the behavioural and skill theories offer an
enhanced perspective, one that is focused on the behaviours and capabilities of
the leaders as opposed to their mental, physical or social characteristics
(although there is a fuzzy line to the trait model as the development of many
skills are influenced by personal traits, such as intelligence).[121]
Describing leadership as a behaviour and a skill makes leadership available to
everyone because skills and behaviours are competencies that people can learn
and develop.

However, while the behavioral
theories analyze leaders’ behaviors, it still misses analysing another
important element: the context and situations in which the leaders exist and
must operate.

3. Contingency Theories – How
Does the Situation Influence Good Leadership?

Situational and contingency
theories of leadership take the position that there is no one-size-fits-all theory
or model of leadership. A good leader must adapt their style, competencies, and
skills based on the current situation they are leading in.

Some contingency theorists
suggest that though a leader can and needs to adapt to the situation, the
leader will likely still default to his or her own style, personality, and
approach. In short, that leadership style is a reflection of personality
(trait-theory orientated) as well as behaviour (behavioural-theory orientated),
and that leadership styles are basically constant. The trick, according to
these proponents, is to fit the right leader to the right situation (instead of
an adaptable leader) as certain people who perform at the maximum level in
certain places may only be able to exhibit minimal performance when taken out
of their element.

My position is that effective
leaders can learn to adapt to any situation.

Situational and contingency
theories study which style of leadership is best suited for a particular
working context. Researchers realized that many of the leadership behaviors are
appropriate at different times, and the stronger agile leaders are those who
can use many different behavioral styles, and choose the right leadership style
for each situation. For instance, when you need to make quick decisions, which
style is best? When you need the full support of your team, is there a more
effective way to lead? Should a leader be more people-oriented or
task-oriented? These are all questions that situational and contingency
leadership theories try to address.

The realization that there is no
one correct type of leader led to theories that the best leadership style
depends on the situation. That is to say, effective leadership may depend on a
balance between the leader’s method (i.e. underlying theory of leadership,
whether Behavioural,[122]
Power and Influence, etc.) and style and that demanded by the situation to take
a team from being ordinary to extraordinary – embracing different styles at
different times (depending on the type of challenges). These theories try to
predict which style is best in which circumstance, which may include directing,
coaching, supporting, delegating, collaborative and/or visionary. Consequently,
different approaches (which may become an amalgamation of different leadership
styles) are followed at different times.

The “styles theory” of leadership
focuses on the different styles of leadership – focuses on what leaders do and
how they act. A leadership style is a leader’s manner of providing
direction, implementing plans, and motivating people. Different patterns of
behaviour are observed and categorized as ‘styles of leadership’. For example,
some lead with an autocratic and demanding style and others a democratic style
that invites participation. There are numerous styles of leadership, including:
autocratic leadership,[123]
bureaucratic leadership,[124]
charismatic leadership,[125]
democratic / participative leadership,[126]
laissez-faire leadership,[127]
people-oriented / relations-oriented leadership,[128]
servant leadership (also referred to as a theory),[129]
task-oriented leadership,[130]
transactional leadership (also referred to as a type of management more than
leadership theory or style),[131]
and transformational leadership (also referred to as a theory).[132]
For example:[133]

“Using the commanding style, you make decisions without consulting employees. Use this in emergencies. Using the pacesetting style, you set high standards and motivate employees to achieve lofty goals that establish and maintain a competitive advantage. Using a democratic style, you take the time to come to a consensus before making a decision. To use the collaborative approach, get input from your subordinates and make a decision that makes the most sense for everyone. To use a visionary style, focus on defining the mission and allowing your subordinates to come up with the action plan. If your employees lack skills and experience, use a coaching style to get them up to speed.”

The practical application of the
theory is that leader’s behavior affects their performance and
different leadership behaviors (styles) could be appropriate at
different times. The best leaders are those have the adaptability to flex
their behavioral style, and choose the right style suitable for
each situation.[134]

4. Power and Influence Theories –
What Is the Source of the Leader’s Power?

Power and influence theories of
leadership take a different approach based on the different ways that leaders
use power and influence to get things done (i.e. organizational power:
legitimate, reward, coercive; and personal power: referent, expert,
information), and they look at the leadership styles that may be utilized (or
emerge as a result). Power provides the capacity or potential to
influence others. Although ‘expert’ and ‘referent’ power have been
found to have the best performing followers, it is possible to use more than
one form of power, for any given situation with any given organization, network
or team of followers. Sometimes a single situation with different followers
might involve different forms or sources of power, and it is important that
leaders develop an awareness of the appropriate form of power for particular
followers and situations:[135]

“Expert power is determined by the amount of knowledge that one possesses and on which others must depend. Referent power is determined by the strength of regard follower’s have for a leader, such as someone who is highly respected. Legitimate power is determined by a formal power structure, such as with an organizational hierarchy that defines certain positions as supervisors. Reward power is determined by the leader’s control over resources, such as benefits. … [C]oercive power is derived from fear, force and punishment.”

And information power – which is
both positional and personal – is derived from possession of, or access to,
valuable information.[136]

One interesting finding is the
role that procedural justice may play in the sources of power used by leaders.
Although the sources of power are interrelated as well as related to work
outcomes, they are also mediated by employees’ perceptions of social justice.
What does this mean? It means that employees evaluate their perceptions
concerning the fairness with which leaders use the sources of power and respond
accordingly. Specifically, when employees perceive that the way leaders use the
various sources of power seem fair, they respond more favorably. This research
lead over time to a non-traditional understanding of the concept of power: empowerment of organization members
– and it has become a major leadership strategy for many businesses looking to
improve work outcomes[137]
and corporate culture[138]
(i.e. movement from ‘command and control’ rules-based leadership culture to a
values-based ‘coordinate and cultivate’ one):[139]

“Fostering a ‘coordinate and cultivate’ philosophy is particularly attractive in complex organizational environments where governance is becoming a key business issue. Why is this? In these type of environments executives, managers, and front line decision makers are continually faced with leadership responsibilities, and constantly have to make, revise or reverse decisions, often under stress. In these more complex and fast paced environments, governance should not be focused mainly on control anymore, and should also address leadership and commitment to support an agile approach. In essence, when people are qualified in what to do, and the objectives of an organisation are clearly understood, then leaders can push decision-making down the hierarchy by adopting a coaching style of leadership.”

However, this type of leadership approach
and style should not completely succeed ‘command-and-control’ leadership in
most organizations, but rather provide a more balanced approach. It requires
leaders in most cases to use the power of influence rather than positional
authority to engage and align people, focus their teams, sustain momentum, and
perform. After all, success will depend on creating an environment and culture
of trust, mutual respect, and shared aspiration in which all members of the
team can contribute fully and openly to achieving collective goals: “leaders
must thus focus on relationships as well as results, and the medium through
which they operate is high-quality conversation”.[140]

Hierarchical, command-and-control approaches simply do not work anymore. They impede information flows inside companies, hamper the fluid and collaborative nature of work today. Our research and experience suggest that the fundamental shifts in today’s business environment compel us to rethink the nature of strategy, organization, and consequently, leadership.

Transactional leadership may be
categorized under power and influence theories (note: this theory has also been
referred to as a style of leadership, and by others as a form of management).
Transactional theories, also known as management or exchange theories of
leadership, are characterized by a transaction made between the leader and the
followers – the premise being that that people will follow leadership if there
is a fair and equitable transaction that takes place (i.e. if the incentives
match what is required of them). This approach assumes that people do things
for reward and for no other reason, and that transactional leaders – who are
seen as task and outcome-oriented – are most efficient when they develop a
mutual reinforcing environment, for which the individual and the organizational
goals are in sync. So, the leader’s job is to find the right mix of rewards and
punishments. Therefore, transactional leadership focuses is on the rules of
supervision, organization and group performance and designing tasks and reward
structures. While this may not be the most appealing leadership strategy in
terms of building relationships and developing a highly motivating work
environment, it often works, and leaders in most organizations use it on a
daily basis to get things done.

Transformational leadership theory
(note: also referred to as a style of leadership by some researchers and
theorists) draws on assorted capabilities and approaches to leadership,
creating distinct advantages for the organization – particularly as
“transformational problems are the critical issues”[142]
today for fast-paced knowledge-based industries and organizations. This theory
states that leaders gain buy-in and commitment by encouraging, inspiring, and
caring for their followers towards a purpose and greater goal or vision for the
organization. A transformational leader has to be strategic from a planning and
objective setting perspective, a strong communicator that can be trusted so
that by extension people are willing to ‘get on the bus’, and both be
passionate and focused in order to drive change from inception to a successful
conclusion.[143] A
leader using this approach possesses and exhibits integrity, character and
empathy, the ability to create a safe environment and collaborative corporate
culture, setting a good example and clearly communicating goals to the
organization’s employees. The leader expects the best from them, inspiring
people to look beyond their own interests and focus on the interests and needs
of the team and organization. This leader provides stimulating work and takes
the time to develop their people and recognize good work.[144]
The transformational Leadership theories focus on the process by which a leader
interacts with others and is able to create a solid relationship that results
in a high level of trust and employee well-being, and that will later result in
an increase of motivation, both intrinsic and extrinsic:[145]

“A well-functioning team is always going to do better than a lone genius dictating orders. It’s important for leaders to recognize this. … Great leaders recognize that it takes a great team to be successful. So, they lead from a place of influence instead of authority. And by doing that they can start to make a positive impact in their company and the world.”

Whether we’re leading armies [or] multinational corporations … you can absolutely have success when leaders eat first. But that success is going to be short-term and less able to weather hard times. … Empathy – the ability to recognize and share other people’s feelings – is the most important instrument in a leader’s toolbox. … ‘Leaders Eat Last’ is a vision for the future. It offers some explanation of how we find ourselves where we are today and what we can do to change it.

Research supports that
organizations and teams led by transformational leaders – exercising influence
over authority – have higher levels of performance, innovation, and
satisfaction that those led by other types of leaders. A hallmark of all
transformational leadership behaviours is their future orientation (i.e.
creating an inspiring vision of the future; motivating and empowering people to
buy into and deliver strategic long term objectives and short term goals),
building strong trust-based motivated relationships, and awareness of the
interconnected world and that collaboration is essential to work towards common
goals and solve ‘wicked problems’[147]
– unlike the present or short term orientation that characterizes management. Transformational
leadership can be highly effective when used appropriately (including for
example a more balanced ‘transformational leadership’ approach that includes both
directive and inclusive styles of leadership),[148]
but it might not necessarily be the best choice for every situation,
particularly in situations where leadership skill-sets are lacking, or where group
member are unskilled and need a lot of oversight[149]:[150]

“Transformation-capable teams are made up of people who are not only high performers, but who hold a unique balance of skills and mindsets that allow them to sustain focus, agility, and optimism in the face of uncertainty for prolonged periods of time. Ultimately, not all top-performing employees are equipped for this.”

The more complex society gets, the more sophisticated leadership must become. Complexity means change, but specifically it means rapidly occurring, unpredictable, non-linear change.

The Nature of Leadership is Shifting

Each of these four core groups of
leadership theories (i.e. trait, behavioural, contingency, power and influence)
have different implications for the way leaders should be selected and trained.
At the end of the day, leadership will need to adapt in the era of ‘always on’
change, disruption and transformation. The competencies required by an
entrepreneurial manager to build a new organization are not identical to the
skills required by the chief executive or managing partner of a large,
established organization. The competencies required to lead an organization in
a stable, supportive environment are not identical to the competencies needed
to lead an organization facing a turbulent, rapidly changing, competitive
environment.[152]

The nature of leadership and management is shifting due to
the unprecedented changes affecting organizations. In an effort to cope with
these changes, leaders and managers will still need many of the traditional
competencies, as well as additional competencies. As the pace of globalization,
technological development, and social change keeps on increasing, there appears
to be a premium on competencies such as cognitive complexity, emotional and
social intelligence, self-awareness, cultural sensitivity, behavioural
flexibility and the ability to learn from experience and adapt to change. These
are typical transformational leadership competencies[153]:[154]

“In … the twenty-first century, we are … see[ing] that traditional, autocratic, and hierarchical modes of leadership are yielding to a newer model – one based on teamwork and community, one that seeks to involve others in decision making, one strongly based in ethical and caring behaviour and one that is attempting to enhance the personal growth of workers while improving the caring and quality of our many institutions.”

Although what constitutes effective leadership depends on context, certain qualities are rated as important across an array of situations. The best-documented characteristics cluster in five categories: vision, values (integrity, honesty, an ethic of service), personal skills (self-awareness, self-control), interpersonal skills (social awareness, empathy, persuasion), and technical skills (knowledge, preparation, judgement).

In today’s turbulent business
environment, BigLaw, traditional law firms, and in-house legal departments are
seeking leaders who possess strong organizational leadership abilities that
enable them to reposition their organizations based on anticipated market
change. A focus on leadership competencies and development – cognitive,
interpersonal, business and strategic – promotes better leadership, and
developing successful global leaders is a competitive advantage for
multinational organizations (as global leaders face special challenges that may
require additional competencies).[156]
Today’s leaders will require an understanding of leadership theories,
competencies, and styles that emphasize the relational, inspirational, collaborative,
and ethical nature of leadership, in contrast to the hierarchical,
transactional, and outcome-oriented nature of management:[157]

“Scholars and researchers have devoted themselves for decades to understanding the nature of organizational leadership. This work has resulted in many different leadership theories and in an enormous body of empirical research. From this extensive theorizing and large body of research, it is apparent that the very best of organizational leadership is relational and inspirational, ethical, future-oriented, focused on employee development, and laden with the humility that characterizes great leaders. Equally important is the knowledge that despite the loftiness of the theories, the best of leadership can be expressed through small but meaningful behaviors enacted at the right time.”

Leadership in the 21st Century

We are living in a rapidly
changing and complex world that appears to be significantly transforming many
of the widely accepted standards we have previously taken for granted – and
this includes the leadership and management needs of even the most successful
organizations.

It is fair to say that the
business landscape today is characterized by rapid and constant change and
uncertainty, and that this is simply the reality for organizations in the 21st
Century. No exceptions. And, in this challenging
environment the traditional hierarchical models of leadership are not very
effective (having evolved primarily for stability in a well-known predictable
business environment), and are particularly ineffective within today’s “learning
organizations filled with professionals and knowledge workers who don’t
responds well to ‘top down’ leadership”. While traditional “top-down leaders
may achieve near-term results” they cannot effectively lead an entire
organization through continual change, sustain a strong corporate culture or
long-term performance.[159]
As well, if leadership is approached as a linear framework or process it
undermines the notion that all organizations and their leadership teams must
continually adapt and respond to the changing external and internal environment
(change is not a ‘one off’). Sustainable organizations must accept and adopt an
appropriate leadership and organizational structure (an agile model designed
for today’s digital economy)[160]
that embraces a collaborative corporate culture of continuous learning,[161] innovation,
and change.[162]

This report is intended to help leaders think about how traditional notions of leadership must change. We are not suggesting a wholesale replacement of previous leadership theory. Elements of inclusive leadership are echoed in transformational, servant, and authentic leadership, for example, and these concepts are carried forward. However … [u]nderstanding and being adept at inclusive leadership will help leaders thrive in their increasingly diverse environment.

Given today’s highly
interdependent world – full of complexity, accelerating change, and unforeseen
and unprecedented events – leadership must be reflective of an expanded
paradigm that recognizes the importance of collaborative relationships and
corporate culture, and draws upon and integrates theories, competencies, and
styles from a wide range of disciplines to foster practical application and
transformative change[164]
:[165]

“With ever-increasing demands at work for both mid-level and senior leaders, the ability to execute and get things done is a key driver of success. But it can ultimately become a leader’s downfall, resulting in unintended costs for the individual, as well as for their teams and organizations. …

The high levels of efficiency that allow highly task-focused leaders to be so productive often come at the expense of a more people-based focus. Things like building relationships, inspiring a team, developing others, and showing empathy can fall by the wayside. Highly efficient leaders often lose their focus on people due to a limiting belief that more people-focused activities will slow them down and impede their ability to execute, and to ultimately be successful.

The irony is that an intense focus on efficiency and getting things done … makes these leaders less effective overall. The result is often a negative impact on organizational climate and burnout of team members. … These leaders can also incur high costs themselves, such as having a promotion blocked, or even being fired — not to mention the costs to their personal lives and relationships. …

Great leaders are able to balance task-focus (getting things done) with people-focus (inspiring, developing, and empowering others). Highly task-focused leaders tend to have tunnel vision in their drive for results, rather than applying a broader lens that recognizes the need to sometimes “go slow to go fast”. Leaders who balance task- and people-focus are equally driven and also strive for results, but they keep the broader organizational needs in mind. They also recognize that it’s not just about being efficient — it’s about being effective.

In research conducted by Robert Anderson and William Adams for their book ‘Scaling Leadership’, they identified that the number one differentiator of effective leaders is strong people skills, and that six out of ten of their biggest strengths related to people skills such as listening, developing others, and empowering their team members. Overly task-focused leaders also tend to be more reactive, operating from a position of fear, and often displaying highly directive, controlling, or perfectionist behaviors that can alienate others and be disempowering to their teams. …

To be sure, task-focus and achieving results are vital for any leader, team, or organization to succeed, but without a sufficient balance with people-focus, success will be limited at every level.”

In these circumstances, there are
real opportunities for a new generation of leaders to reshape the best-led
local, national and global organizations.
Big picture, it must not be forgotten that an organization’s leadership
– including strategy, vision, corporate culture, long term objectives, and
short term goals – are not set in stone, but rather, should at all times be
open to appropriate re-evaluation as circumstances unfold.

The 2018 UK Corporate Governance Code establishes an overall Principle requiring boards (of premium listed companies) to establish the company’s purpose, values and strategy, and satisfy themselves that these and its culture are aligned and for promoting the desired culture. … [L]eadership is a key determinant of culture.

– Governing culture: practical considerations for the board and its committees[166]

Leadership theory continues to
evolve and provide practical applications for leaders and managers. The
discussion of leadership – behavioural, technical, relational, situational,
etc. – is ongoing, but modern research and resultant theory on how
organizations evolve and adapt to a changing environment suggests that the mix
of behavioural and technical competencies required for effective leadership may
change over time. An integrative view of leadership – taking and applying the
best of the different leadership approaches (theories, competencies and styles)
– takes “a more holistic view of leadership”, “examining all angles of
leadership and including in their models and studies the leader, the follower,
the context, the levels, and their dynamic interaction”, including the fact
that in organizations today “more and more leadership is being distributed and
shared”.[167]
In the 21st century the most effective leaders will likely focus on
sustaining superior performance by influencing and aligning people around
vision, purpose and values – while empowering leaders and personnel at all
levels, and fostering a collaborative spirit.[168]

To develop as a leader in today’s
dynamic, volatile, uncertain, and disruptive business environment, the question
has to be asked: “what will it take to become a great leader in the digital
economy? What will be the differentiating skill
sets (what individuals will need to do) and mind-sets (how they will need to think and behave) that will
shed light on what it will take to lead next-generation organizations
effectively? Fundamentally, leadership is leadership, right? In the
end, it’s all about crafting a vision and strategy, influencing and motivating
people to execute that strategy for customers [clients], and delivering
superior value. End of story. But is it?” In developing leaders in today’s 21st
century world, there also needs to be a recognition that there are key changes
taking place (i.e. increased pace of change, digitalization, AI and machine
learning, globalization, demographics, societal and cultural norms,
geopolitical risks) that are influencing what it means to be an effective
leader.[169]
For example, some business and academic leaders have suggested that in light of
the fast paced “tidal wave of disruption” (in particular “digital disruption”),[170]
going forward organizations – particularly large organizations – must move
“toward participative management, decentralized decision making, and autonomous
but accountable work teams and platforms”,[171]
while embracing a collaborative corporate culture and entrepreneurial[172]
and emergent[173]
thinking and strategic management. Leaders and managers that can influence and
rally support will build reputations as effective communicators and leaders:[174]

“Influencing others down, up, and across in the organization is a critical leadership skill at all levels of the organization. By convincing or persuading others, a leader can create direction, alignment, and commitment and make his or her vision or ideas happen. Effective leaders leverage the informal or formal powers they have. They combine a variety of tactics (logical, emotional, and cooperative appeals). And they have political savvy, create visibility, build and maintain personal trustworthiness, leverage networks, communicate clearly, and motivate others.”

Greater diversity in the
composition and function of teams is occurring more frequently than in the past,
and it is important that both traditional and virtual teams have a clear
direction, the right mix of members, support from the organization’s
leadership, and sense of trust, empowerment and identity (i.e. common
understanding of organization’s culture and values, and the team’s mission).[175]
In organizations with these type of leaders, personnel – from the executive to
middle managers to the front line – “feel safer taking risks, innovating, and
speaking [their] minds when doing so in trust-based environments”.[176]

In the past, companies usually hired leaders who were good at creating standardized processes, formulating five-year strategic plans, and establishing a series of controls for people to follow those plans in order to win in business. … But now, in the digital economy, we realize we need to hire leaders who can create an innovation-minded culture that fosters creative thinking, agility, and speed. We can’t do any of those things without building a solid foundation of trust and empowerment.

Using digital transformation as
an example – it is estimated that worldwide 40% of all technology spending will
be for digital transformation technology, with companies spending more than $2
trillion by 2019,[178]
and that by 2020 60% of all enterprises will have fully articulated an
organization-wide digital platform strategy[179] – an
organization’s “expected improvements are based on the organization’s ability
to move out of how things are currently done, through a transition state and,
then to how things will be done in the future” (assuming the strategic change
initiative is implemented successfully by leadership).[180]
“During a major change, organizations” and their leadership teams “need to
continually challenge and fundamentally change how people operate and deliver
value to customers. And depending on the type of transformation that is being
deployed, employees may need to (a) learn new skills and behaviours; (b)
step-up to fill new roles; and (c) adopt new processes and technology”.
Realizing the desired outcome of a business transformation means also “managing
the people side of change intently and intentionally”,[181]
which must include strong attention by leadership to the organization’s
culture,[182]
personnel who may feel vulnerable and/or threatened,[183]
and key personnel.[184]

Although this type of path may be
“riddled” with leadership and management “challenges”, many organizations
across industries are also looking at “transforming into ecosystem
organizations” [185]
– and its spread and uptake is pointing to a leadership, strategic and business
utility that likely should not be underestimated[186]:[187]

“Times change. And there is no question that digital technologies have disrupted the models that customarily defined how we conduct business. This leaves monolithic corporations across all industries with a clear choice: they can continue to lose ground and eventually watch their business crumble, or they can take charge of their own future by embracing the new way of integrating functions and becoming an ecosystem organization.

Changing from a monolithic business to an ecosystem organization is difficult. It requires reconfiguring the company’s entire value chain – taking it apart piece by piece and then putting it back together with a new structure. This structure includes not only the company’s internal operations but also multiple external partners that truly work together toward the single goal of serving the customer better. … [T]his transition requires the company to develop a new mindset.”

Talking about the need to transform walled enterprises with top-down management structures into decentralized open networks or corporate ecosystems is all the rage these days. But implementing revolutionary change at the enterprise level is easier said than done, especially for folks who live and breathe traditional management [leadership] theory.

Understanding and utilizing leadership
theories, competencies, and styles – which includes strategic management theory
and practice (discussed in my July and August 2018 articles on ‘Strategic Management and Leadership’ and
‘Strategy Implementation and Change
Management’)[189]
– is crucial for the sustainable success of an organization.[190] It is the skillset of leading and managing organizations (both large
and small) and its personnel in a manner which maximizes the ability of
achieving business objectives:[191]

Strategy formulation is the process by which an
organization’s strategic leaders come together to reach consensus and decide on
the best course of action for accomplishing its defined organizational
objectives (and hence achieving its organizational purpose).

Operational leadership and managers must
translate the broader organizational-wide strategies and objectives to be
achieved into sound implementation plans and goals, building and/or improving
the framework – the organization’s structures and systems – to support operational execution by the
organization’s functional (tactical) leaders, managers, supervisors, and
frontline personnel on a day-to-day basis.
At this stage operational leadership and managerial skills are extremely
important.

Corporate culture is a key component of strategy
execution. Leaders can guide and shift culture to improve organizational
performance and sustainable results.

In this respect, professionals who can lead and influence in these challenging times – managing change and uncertainty, successfully implementing strategy, and appropriately reshaping their organizations – are the respected and sought-after models of leadership today.

Conclusion

Legal leaders in law firms, in
business, in government, and every member of their teams, are being tested in
these uniquely difficult and unpredictable times. And times of uncertainty and
change – in particular rapid change – are opportunities for lawyers with
aspirations to advance their professional careers to be heard and seen as
leaders in their own right.

To paraphrase Clayton
Christensen,[193]
leadership and management are “perhaps the most noble of professions if it is
practiced well. No other occupation offers as many ways to help others learn
and grow, take responsibility and be recognized for achievement, and contribute
to the success of a team” and an organization:[194]

[Leadership and] management isn’t simply about P&L statements, meeting quarterly growth and profitability targets, and creating brand awareness. Those are byproducts of good [leadership and] management. [Leadership and] management is about waking up every day and helping people become better people so they can do better work and live better lives.”

Leadership is critical because it is
strongly determinative of organizational direction and outcomes – and lawyers
of course have a significant role to play in leadership if they choose to do so. Leadership is a learned skillset, and every lawyer
can develop and improve their leadership abilities through education, training,
leadership development programs,[195]
feedback, self-reflection, and practice. In this respect, a broad
understanding of leadership effectiveness and a more holistic and integrated
view of leadership theories, competencies, and styles will support the
development of a flexible, adaptable and agile leader that can identify and
address not only the ‘hard ball’, but also any ‘curve balls’ thrown their way:[196]

“Leaders in the digital age must encourage a culture of measured innovation and experimentation within clear parameters, and they must learn fast. They should be prepared to quickly course correct and optimize opportunities. They must break down silos and champion seamless collaboration and exchange of information. And importantly, they must compete for scarce skills, engage talent in more varied ways than before, and champion broader thinking and learnability to fast-track upskilling and reskilling of their people.”

Today, leaders are faced with many challenges in running organisations. Over the past 50 years the definitions, descriptions, expectations, and styles of leadership have evolved and will continue to do so. What was true concerning leadership in the past may no longer hold today, and what is true today may not be so in the future. Even so, leaders must be in tune with their teams and be willing to adjust with the times.

Most organizations — including
those that are ahead of the game — acknowledge that their leadership pipeline
and existing leaders may not yet be fully prepared to tackle the challenges of the
digital economy fueled by disruptive innovation, the headwinds of new market
realities, and a world being reshaped by the Fourth Industrial Revolution.[198]
This “gap between current
leadership bench strength and future leadership demands is a serious liability”,
and organizations – including law firms and in-house legal departments – must
get a handle on the “reality of their leadership situation” in today’s volatile
environment, and the “sooner they understand the reality of their leadership
situation, the quicker they can move to adapt by refocusing
leadership development efforts and rethinking recruitment priorities”.[199]

This recognition and the ongoing escalation in the pace of change, uncertainty and unpredictability has increased the demand for effective leaders.[200] There is a premium for leaders who “fully embrace and understand how to compete and lead in the new economy” – exhibiting leadership skills and enabling mindsets that influence and encourage a more agile, innovative, adaptive, empowered, collaborative and engaged workplace and corporate culture.[201]

Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play.

The differentiating factor for organizations is the quality and effectiveness of their leadership. As such, lawyers who can lead with a greater sense of purpose, successfully lead integrated multi-disciplinary teams and networks, manage change, and strategically reshape their organizations are a respected and sought after commodity.[203]

[3] John Maxwell, The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Follow Them and People will Follow You, Thomas Nelson Inc, 2007; Leadership by Design: An architecture to build leadership in organizations, Deloitte, 2011; Jim Collins, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap … and others Don’t, HarpersCollins Publishers, 2001.

[5]Global Leadership Forecast 2018: 25 Research
Insights to Fuel Your People Strategy, EY.com / Development Dimensions
International (DDI) / Conference Board Inc, 2018 (“the top challenges vying for
leaders’ action focused on their own leaders. Developing ‘Next Gen’ leaders and
failure to attract/retain top talent were rated in the top five by 64 percent
and 60 percent of respondents”); Jean Brittain Leslie, The Leadership Gap: What You Need, and Still Don’t Have, When It Comes
to Leadership Talent, Center for Creative Leadership, 2015; Amy Fox, Great Leaders Connect with Employees, Foster
Collaboration and Embrace continuous Change, Entrepreneur.com, April 19,
2016; Laci Loew, Study Shows Leadership
Development Rated Below Average or Poor in More than One-Third of Organizations,
Training Magazine (trainingmag.com), May 28, 2015; Chris Groscurth, Future-Ready Leadership: Strategies for the
Fourth Industrial Revolution, Praeger, 2018; From C-Suite to Digital
Suite: How to Lead Through Digital Transformation, Right Management
Manpower Group, 2017.

[14]
Julian Barling, The Science of
Leadership: Lessons from Research for Organizational Leaders, Oxford
University Press, 2014.

[15]
Robert Post, Leadership in Educational
Institutions: Reflections of a Law School Dean, Yale Law School Legal
Scholarship Repository, 2017.

[16]
Julian Barling, The Science of
Leadership: Lessons from Research for Organizational Leaders, Oxford
University Press, 2014.

[17]
For example, see: Robert Hackett, How
Cisco Encourages Everyone to Innovate (All the Time), Fortune, February 14,
2019; Ron Ashkenas, Innovation is
Everyone’s Job, Harvard Business Review, December 6, 2011; What Can Your Organization Do To Become More
Innovative?, Forbes, July 13, 2017; Matt Ross, The innovation paradox: an interview with Canada’s digital chief Alex
Benay, Global Government Forum, February 21, 2019.

[18]
Robert Velasquez, 13 Shocking Leadership
Development Statistics, Infopro Learing.com, May 31, 2017; Jean Brittain
Leslie, The Leadership Gap: What You
Need, and Still Don’t Have, When It Comes to Leadership Talent, Center for
Creative Leadership, 2015.

[23]
Employee engagement, see: State of the
Global Workplace: 85% of employees worldwide are not engaged or actively
disengaged in their job, Gallup Press, 2017; Just 15% of employees are engaged. The rest lose $7 trillion
productivity, Counsultancy.uk, May 29, 2018:

“Employee engagement and workplace productivity are inextricably linked. Studies repeatedly confirm that employees who are absorbed in and enthusiastic about their work perform better and create more value for their organisation. Yet extensive new analysis from Gallup – renowned for its pioneering research methodology – reveals engaged employees to be in the minority.

Gallup’s ‘State of the Global Workforce’ report is an exhaustive breakdown of data accrued from employees across 155 countries. Researchers found that, globally, just 15%, or slightly over a sixth, of workers were actively engaged in their jobs. This figure varies considerably across countries and regions, but never exceeds 40%. The cost to the global economy in lost productivity? Estimated at $7 trillion annually by the experts.

Strikingly, the percentage of employees who are not merely disengaged but decidedly discouraged by their role is higher – at 18% – than those who are excited by it. Outside the extremes of antipathetic and enthusiastic workers live the majority of the global workforce (67%) who are simply not engaged. “They are not your worst performers,” explain the authors, “but they are indifferent to your organisation. They give you their time, but not their best effort nor their best ideas.”

One pattern identified in the 215-page report is that employees in routinised roles, typically in manufacturing and production, tend to be less engaged. But considerable differences across regions that transcend industries and roles suggest that managerial philosophies and workplace cultures play a compelling part in driving employee engagement.”

“Many ways are possible to think about strategic management in organizations. These approaches can be broadly grouped into two distinct views – those that assume that with proper analysis a workable strategy can be prescribed in advance, then carried out, versus those with the underlying assumption that too much complexity and change exists for a complete and viable plan to be worked out in advance, thus the strategy will emerge over time.

These two fundamental views of strategic management are referred to as the [1] analytical or rational approach and the [2] emergent approach.

Specifically, analytical or rational approaches to strategic management rely on a logical sequence of steps or processes (linear thinking) to develop a predetermined logical plan and carry it out without change. An emergent approach … relies on intuitive [entrepreneurial] thinking, leadership, and learning with the understanding that because of external change, strategic plans evolve as strategy unfolds and the organization learns what works and what does not. Both approaches are valid and useful in explaining an organization’s strategy and neither the analytical approach nor the emergent view, by itself, is enough. …

It is difficult to initiate and sustain organizational action without some predetermined logical plan. Yet in a dynamic industry … [leaders and] managers must expect to learn and establish new directions as they process.

The analytical approach is similar to a map, whereas the emergent model is similar to a compass. Both may be used to guide one to a destination. A map is a convenient metaphor for a predetermined plan, guideline, or method. Maps are better in known worlds – world that have been charted before. A compass serves as a useful metaphor for an intuitive sense of direction and leadership. Compasses are helpful when leaders are not sure where they are and have only a general sense of direction.[1]

[Leaders] may use the analytical approach to develop a strategy (map) as best they can from their understanding of the industry and by interpreting the capabilities of the organization. Once they begin pursuing the strategy, new understandings and strategies may emerge and old maps (plans) must be modified. … [Leaders] must remain flexible and responsive to new realities – they must learn. …

What is needed is some type of a model that provides guidance or direction to strategic [leaders and] managers, yet incorporates learning and change. If strategy making can be approached in a disciplined way, then there will be an increased likelihood of its successful implementation.

A model or map of how strategy may be developed will help organizations view their strategies in a cohesive, integrated, and systematic way. Without a model or map, [leaders and] managers run the risk of becoming totally incoherent, confused in perception, and muddled in practice.”

[25]
Julian Barling, The Science of
Leadership: Lessons from Research for Organizational Leaders, Oxford
University Press, 2014; Ian MacDonald, Catherine Burke, and Karl Stewart, Systems Leadership: Creating Positive
Organisations, Gower Publishing, 2006; Martin Reeves, Simon Levin, Johann
Harnoss, and Daichi Ueda, The Five Steps
All Leaders Must Take in the Age of Uncertainty, MIT Sloan Management
Review, Spring 2018; Eric Sigurdson, Strategic
Management and Leadership – From the Legal Industry to Financial Services to
Healthcare: “what got you here won’t get you there”, Sigurdson Post, July
30, 2018; Eric Sigurdson, An Integrated
Approach to Strategy Implementation and Change Management – From the Legal
Industry to Financial Services to Health Care: “a fundamental leadership and
management skillset”, Sigurdson Post, August 31, 2018; Eric Sigurdson, Corporate Leadership and Culture: United
Airlines & the ‘Re-accomodated’ Doctor – guiding principles for Boards,
C-suite executives, and General Counsel, Sigurdson Post, May 2, 2017; Eric
Sigurdson, Leadership Qualities: from
Wells Fargo to Donald Trump – character, integrity, and ethics are necessities,
not luxuries, Sigurdson Post, October 17, 2016. Also see, Mirja Telzerow
and Ira Gaberman, Cracking the Culture
Code: How Organizations Get Where They Want to Go – given the rapid pace of
change in most markets, a high performing culture aligned with strategy is more
important than ever, AT Kearney.com, 2015; Dr. Catherine McGregor, Is the Key to Business Success Cracking the
Culture Code?, Global Leaders in Law, Law.com, February 11, 2019; Daniel
Coyle, The Culture Code: The Secrets of
Highly Successful Groups, Bantam Books, 2018; John Kotter and James
Heskett, Corporate Culture and
Performance, 1992 (and 2011); EY
Center for Board Matters: The board’s role in corporate culture, EY.com,
2017 (“A company’s culture is defined and embodied by its leaders”).

[26]
Deborah Blagg, Managing Teams – and
Careers – in the Age of Disruption, Harvard Extension School: Professional
Development (extension.harvard.edu).

[27]
Eric Sigurdson, The Evolving Legal
Service Delivery: A 2018 Survival Guide for BigLaw and Traditional Law Firms –
building a new business model, Sigurdson Post, January 14, 2018.

[28]
Dermot Knight, A world with no lawyers?
Robots might not be the reason …, LinkedIn, February 12, 2019 (“Lawyer
morale is at a dangerously low level. There is a growing number of lawyers
across a wide cross section of legal environments who are leaving not just
their current roles – but the industry altogether. Those that are staying are a
long way from enthusiastic in their jobs. This is cause for reflection.”).

[29]
James Goodnow, Why Innovation Dies in Law
Firms: even the most established firms need to think like startups, Above
the Law, February 22, 2019. Also see, Bob Amrogi, LawNext Episode 29: Baker McKenzie’s Jae Um and Casey Flaherty
on BigLaw Innovation, LawSites (lawsitesblog.com), February 26, 2019.

[30]
Francesca Ramadan (editor), Legal
Leadership: a handbook for future success, Ark Group, 2018. Also see, James
Goodnow, Why Innovation Dies in Law
Firms: even the most established firms need to think like startups, Above
the Law, February 22, 2019; Lisa Kwan, The
Collaboration Blind Spot, Harvard Business Review, March-April 2019.

[31]
Mara Leighton, 4 soft skills LinkedIn
says are most likely to get you hired in 2018 – and the online courses to get
them, Business Insider, April 18, 2018.

[32]
Eric Beaudan, Leadership Lab: Do you have what it takes to be an
executive?, Globe and Mail, July 10, 2018.

[33]
Angela Wright, Resolving Complex Legal Issues is no Longer Enough – How
will you step up in response to increasing demands?, LinkedIn, July 8, 2018.

[34]
Eric Beaudan, Leadership Lab: Do you
have what it takes to be an executive?, Globe and Mail, July 10, 2018.

[35]
Boris Groysberg, The Seven Skills You
Need to Thrive in the C-Suite, Harvard Business Review, March 18, 2014.

[36]
Deena Shanker, Why are lawyers such
terrible managers?, Fortune, January 11, 2013. Also see, John Olmstead, How to Reinvent Your Law Practice in Order
to Prosper in the 21st Century, Olmstead & Associates Legal
Management Consultants, 2010; Mark Cohen, The
Legal Industry Needs Fresh Leadership with New Skill Sets, Forbes,
September 18, 2017; Mara Leighton, 4 soft
skills LinkedIn says are most likely to get you hired in 2018 – and the online
courses to get them, Business Insider, April 18, 2018; Leadership Training
for Lawyers, Leadership for Lawyers (leadershipforattorneys.org); Donald
Polden, Educating Law Students for
Leadership Roles and Responsibilities, 39 U. Tol. L. Rev. 353, 2008; Paula
Monopoli and Susan McCarthy, Law and
Leadership: Integrating Leadership Studies into the Law School Curriculum,
Ashgate Publishing, 2013, 2016; Leadership
Training Initiative Launches, Columbia Law School (law.columbia.edu),
November 2017; Business Leadership
Program for In-house Counsel, Rotman School of Management, University of
Toronto (rotman.utoronto.ca) and Canadian Corporate Counsel Association
(ccca-accje.org), 2019; Irene Mo, The
T-shaped lawyer: Building your knowledge in disciplines beyond the law, ABA
for Law Students (abaforlawstudents.com), November 2, 2017; Peter Connor, The T-Shaped Lawyer, ACC Docket,
Association of Corporate Counsel, July-August 2017; Mark Le Blanc, To be a modern in-house counsel,
Canadian Lawyer, February 4, 2019.

[37]Leadership Skills Program, University of
Toronto, Faculty of Law (law.utoronto.ca), 2018-2019. Also see, Business Leadership Program for In-house
Counsel, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto
(rotman.utoronto.ca) and Canadian Corporate Counsel Association
(ccca-accje.org), 2019.

[38]
Katie Moore, New course aims to create
the next generation of legal profession leaders – Leadership for Lawyers gives
law students insight into key leadership skills, UToday, University of
Calgary (ucalgary.ca), March 15, 2017.

[39]
Leadership Training for Lawyers, Leadership for Lawyers
(leadershipforattorneys.org). Also see, Deborah L. Rhode, Lawyers as Leaders, 2010 Michigan State Law Review 413, 2010 (“Law
schools pride themselves on teaching future practitioners to think like
lawyers. But the experience does little to teach them to think like leaders.
Legal education owes it to our students, our profession, and our world, to do
better.”).

[40] Emergent
thinking (or ‘intelligent opportunism’) is the idea that, although strategic
thinking is inherently concerned with shaping and reshaping strategic intent,
there must be room for flexibility – an
integration of both strategic and entrepreneurial thinking (both based on the
theory of ‘effectuation’) – thus allowing leadership and organizations to
consider new opportunities. Emergent thinking is about entrepreneurial
leadership, adopting a flexible approach to strategy in order to take advantage
of emerging strategies and new opportunities (that may be arguably more
relevant in a rapidly changing business environment) and, by being
‘intelligently opportunistic’, can positively influence strategic decision
making for the benefit of the organization. See: Peter Ginter, W. Jack Duncan,
and Linda Swayne, Strategic Management of
Health Care Organizations (8th edition), John Wiley & Sons,
2018; Sebastian Fixson and Jay Rao, Learning
Emergent Strategies through Design Thinking, Design Management Review, Vol.
25, Issue 1, Spring 2014; Antonio Dottore and David Corkindale, Towards a Theory of Business Model
Adaptation, Regional Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 2009: 6th
International Australian Graduate School Entrepreneurship Research Exchange,
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia, 2009; Walter Brenner and Falk
Uebernickel, Design Thinking for
Innovation: Research and Practice, Springer International Publishing, 2016;
Marko Matalamaki, Effectuation, an
emerging theory of entrepreneurship – towards a mature stage of the development,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 24, Issue 4, 2017;
Steven Pattinson, Strategic Thinking:
intelligent opportunism and emergent strategy – the case of Strategic Engineering
Services, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Volume 7,
No. 1, 2016:

“The purpose of strategic thinking, it has been suggested, is to: ‘discover novel, imaginative strategies which can re-write the rules of the competitive game; and to envision potential futures significantly different from the present’ (Heracleous, 1998, p 485). Strategic thinking is an essential prerequisite to firms’ survival (Beaver and Ross, 2000). More recently, strategic thinking has been related to the innovative aspects of a firm’s strategic planning (Harrison and St John, 2013). However, Mintzberg and Waters (1985) recognize that not all strategy is consciously planned, referring to ‘emergent strategy’ that is often developed intuitively by entrepreneurs rather than as the result of rational planning (Hill et al, 2014).

The notion of emergent strategy is closely linked to the theory of ‘effectuation’ (Sarasvathy, 2001): that is, the notion that entrepreneurship is a way of thinking, reasoning and acting that focuses on the identification and exploitation of business opportunities from a broad general perspective, which Sarasvathy (2004) describes as the ‘essential agent’ of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is, therefore, associated with opportunity recognition and has been defined as the: ‘examination of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to create future goods and services are discovered, evaluated and exploited’ (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000, p 218), and the ability to recognize opportunities is widely viewed as a key step in the entrepreneurial process (Tang and Khan, 2007). The purpose of strategic thinking, on the other hand, is to clarify the future, allocate and manage resources and manage change (Thompson et al, 2014). However, to create the most value, entrepreneurial firms also need to act strategically, and this calls for an integration of both entrepreneurial and strategic thinking (Hitt et al, 2001), as Zahra and Nambisan (2012, p 219) explain: ‘Strategic thinking and the entrepreneurial activities … influence one another in a cycle that perpetuates and even sparks innovation’. The question is, how can these two concepts be successfully combined?

The concept of ‘intelligent opportunism’ refers to the idea that, although strategic thinking is inherently concerned with shaping and reshaping strategic intent, there must be room for flexibility (Hamel and Prahalad, 1989), thus allowing entrepreneurs to consider new opportunities. Intelligent opportunism involves entrepreneurs being open to new experiences that allow them to take advantage of emergent strategies that are, arguably, more relevant in a rapidly changing business environment and can be considered a form of ‘opportunistic’ strategy (Liedtka, 1998). … Intelligent opportunism is about adopting a flexible approach to strategy in order to take advantage of emerging strategies and new opportunities and, by being ‘intelligently opportunistic’, entrepreneurial leaders can influence strategic decision making (Haycock, 2012).”

Also see: Refilwe
Mauda, The influence and causation
strategies on corporate innovation in conditions of increased industry
uncertainty, A research report re Master of Business Administration
requirements, Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of Pretoria,
January 13, 2015; Laura Paulina Mathiaszyk, Corporate
Effectuation: Effectual Strategy for Corporate Management, Inaugural
Dissertation for Doctor rerum oeconomicarum, Faculty of Economics, Schumpeter
School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, June 2017; Jeroen Oude
Luttikhuis, Effectuation and Causation:
The Effect of “Entrepreneurial Experience” and “Market Uncertainty”: An
Analysis of Causation and Effectuation in Business Plans, Master Thesis
(MSc Business Administration), May 20, 2014;
Andre Hermes, Causation and
effectuation vs. analysis and intuition: conceptual parallels in the context of
entrepreneurial decision-making, 7th IBA Bachelor Thesis
Conference, July 1, 2016 (Faculty of Behavioural, Management, and Social
Sciences).

[41] It is
suggested by some business and academic leaders that a “lack of entrepreneurial
spirit is a major reason for the decreasing competitiveness – and even the
eventual collapse – of big enterprises”, that “the only way to survive was to
pursue a path of constant improvement” [Art Kleiner, China’s Philosopher-CEO Zhang Ruimin, Strategy & Business,
November 10, 2014].

[43]
Paula Monopoli and Susan McCarthy, Law
and Leadership: Integrating Leadership Studies into the Law School Curriculum,
Ashgate Publishing, 2013, 2016; Scott Neilson, Training yesterday’s lawyers: Are law schools in Canada pumping out
lawyers without the skills they need?, Canadian Lawyer, February 5, 2018.

[44]
Mark Cohen, How Will Legal Education and
Training Keep Pace with Change?, Forbes, September 10, 2018. Also see generally,
Mark Cohen, What Are Law Schools Training
Students For?, Forbes, November 19, 2018.

[46]
See, for example, ACC Executive Series:
Skills for the 21st Century General Counsel, Association of
Corporate Counsel, 2013; Deena Shanker, Why
are lawyers such terrible managers?, Fortune, January 11, 2013; Edward
Poll, Lessons in Leadership, the Law
Firm Way, CBA, August 14, 2014; James Goodnow, Law School Has Failed the Profession: Too many Biglaw lawyers are
financially illiterate – putting their practices and firms at risk, Above
the Law, January 25, 2019; Daniel Linna Jr., 21st Century Legal Services? Lawyers and Law Students, You
Can Learn These Skills, Legal Tech Lever, August 16, 2016; Ben W. Heineman
Jr., William Lee, and David Wilkins, Lawyers
as Professionals and as Citizens: Key Roles and Responsibilities in the 21st
Century, Harvard Law School, Center on the Legal Profession, 2014; Rachel
Moran, Lawyers as Professionals and as
Citizens: Key Roles and Responsibilities in the 21st Century
(Commentary), Harvard Law School. Center on the Legal Profession
(clp.law.harvard.edu), 2014; The 21st
Century General Counsel: On Being More Than a Lawyer, Corporate Counsel
Business Journal, June 3, 2015.

[47]
See, for example, ACC Executive Series:
Skills for the 21st Century General Counsel, Association of
Corporate Counsel, 2013; Deena Shanker, Why
are lawyers such terrible managers?, Fortune, January 11, 2013; Edward
Poll, Lessons in Leadership, the Law
Firm Way, CBA, August 14, 2014; James Goodnow, Law School Has Failed the Profession: Too many Biglaw lawyers are
financially illiterate – putting their practices and firms at risk, Above
the Law, January 25, 2019; Daniel Linna Jr., 21st Century Legal Services? Lawyers and Law Students, You
Can Learn These Skills, Legal Tech Lever, August 16, 2016; Ben W. Heineman
Jr., William Lee, and David Wilkins, Lawyers
as Professionals and as Citizens: Key Roles and Responsibilities in the 21st
Century, Harvard Law School, Center on the Legal Profession, 2014; Rachel
Moran, Lawyers as Professionals and as
Citizens: Key Roles and Responsibilities in the 21st Century
(Commentary), Harvard Law School. Center on the Legal Profession
(clp.law.harvard.edu), 2014; The 21st
Century General Counsel: On Being More Than a Lawyer, Corporate Counsel
Business Journal, June 3, 2015.

[60]
James Goodnow, Why Innovation Dies in Law
Firms: even the most established firms need to think like startups, Above
the Law, February 22, 2019.

[61] See generally, John Olmstead, How to Reinvent Your Law Practice in Order to Prosper in the 21st Century, Olmstead & Associates Legal Management Consultants, 2010. Also see, Gregg Wirth, What could large law firms learn from the Big Four?, Thomson Reuters, November 1, 2018; Laura Empson, Leading Professionals: power, politics, and prima donnas, Oxford University Press, 2017; Norman Clark, Good Governance in Law Firms: a strategic approach to executive decision making and management structures, Globe Law and Business , 2014; Marg Bruineman, The right leaders: the traditional partnership model is preventing many firms from adopting a more sophisticated management approach, Canadian Lawyer, September 24, 2018; Tick Tock … The New Age of Legal Operations, GC Magazine (legal500.com), Winter 2017; Chris Johnson, Why Don’t Law Firms Like Experienced Managers?, American Lawyer, September 25, 2017; Andrew Dey, Legal operations: an overview, Thomson Reuters Practical Law, 2019; Jeffrey Lowe, BigLaw 2017: A Look Ahead, Major Lindsey Africa (mlaglobal.com), January 13, 2017; Jeffrey Lowe, BigLaw 2016: A Look Ahead, Law360, January 12, 2016; David Perla, Democracy and Law Firm Leadership, Above the Law, July 26, 2016; Joel Barolsky, Avoiding the Bermuda Triangle of law firm management, Financial Review, February 28, 2019; John O. Cunningham, Law Firm Leadership in the 21st Century: Say Hello to the Law Firm CEO, Legal Marketing Reader, February 2012.

[65]
Why Management is the new Leadership in Professional Services Firms, Gro Group
(thegrogroup.com), 2017. Also see, Raffaella Sadun, Nicholas Bloom, and John
Van Reenen, Why Do We Undervalue
Competent Management?, Harvard Business Review, September-November 2017.

[73]
White Paper: Leading through the Fourth
Industrial Revolution – putting people at the centre, World Economic Forum,
January 2019; Aaron De Smet, Michael Lurie, and Andrew St. George, Leading agile transformation: The new
capabilities leaders need to build 21st century organizations,
McKinsey.com, October 2018; The Tech
Revolution’s Impact on Organisational Leadership, Leadership
(leadershiponline.co.za), July 17, 2018; The
Role of Transformational Leaders in the Fourth Industrial Revolution,
Business Essentials.co.za, May 3, 2018; Peter Smith and John Pourdehnad, Organizational Leadership for the Fourth
Industrial Revolution: Emerging Research and Opportunities, IGI Global,
2018.

[75]
Lars Faeste and Jim Hemerling, Transformation:
Delivering and Sustaining Breakthrough Performance, Boston Consulting
Group, 2016 (page 73-74 “Transformational leadership that is both directive and
inclusive clearly raises the bar for senior executives.“); Jim Hemerling and
Diana Dosik, A Leader’s Guide to “Always-On”
Transformation, Boston Consulting Group, November 9, 2015; Collaborative Leadership: engaging
collective intelligence to achieve results across organisational boundaries,
Oxford Leadership, 2016 (“No single leadership style is appropriate for all
situations. In most companies, both collaborative leadership and
command-and-control will likely be needed to grow sustainable businesses.
However, developing leaders with the character and competencies to lead
collaboratively will be an increasingly important priority as organisations
seek to unleash the collective intelligence of all stakeholders in growing
successful businesses…”). Also see, Juliet Bourke and Bernadette Dillon, The six signature traits of inclusive
leadership: thriving in a diverse new world, Deloitte Insights, April 14,
2016.

[76]
Brad Parks, Leadership in the age of disruption: How to rise to digital
transformation, Information Age, November 21, 2018. Also see, Deborah
Ancona and Hal Gregersen, What Kind of Leadership Works Best at Your Company?,
Harvard Business Review, March 19, 2018.

[112]
Scott Barry Kaufman, Can Personality Be
Changed? Psychologists have long debated how flexible someone’s ‘true’ self is,
The Atlantic, July 26, 2016.

[113]
Martin Williams, Nature vs nurture: can
you learn to be a successful leader?, Guardian, November 26, 2013; Born to lead? Leadership can be an inherited
trait, study finds, Phys.Org, January 15, 2013; Guy Winch, Can Leadership Be Learned or Are you Born
with It?: Your willingness to acquire leadership skills is what matters most,
Psychology Today, February 3, 2015.

[114]
Martin Williams, Nature vs nurture: can
you learn to be a successful leader?, Guardian, November 26, 2013.

[123]10 x Leadership Styles, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (lfhe.ac.uk): Autocratic Leadership – “Autocratic leadership is an extreme form of transactional leadership, where leaders have a lot of power over their people. Staff and team members have little opportunity to make suggestions, even if these would be in the team’s or the organization’s best interest. The benefit of autocratic leadership is that it’s incredibly efficient. Decisions are made quickly, and work gets done efficiently. The downside is that most people resent being treated this way. Therefore, autocratic leadership can often lead to high levels of absenteeism and high staff turnover. However, the style can be effective for some routine and unskilled jobs: in these situations, the advantages of control may outweigh the disadvantages. Autocratic leadership is often best used in crises, when decisions must be made quickly and without dissent. For instance, the military often uses an autocratic leadership style; top commanders are responsible for quickly making complex decisions, which allows troops to focus their attention and energy on performing their allotted tasks and missions.”

[124]10 x Leadership Styles, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (lfhe.ac.uk): Bureaucratic Leadership – “Bureaucratic leaders work ‘by the book’. They follow rules rigorously, and ensure that their people follow procedures precisely. This is an appropriate leadership style for work involving serious safety risks (such as working with machinery, with toxic substances, or at dangerous heights) or where large sums of money are involved. Bureaucratic leadership is also useful in organizations where employees do routine tasks (as in manufacturing). The downside of this leadership style is that it’s ineffective in teams and organizations that rely on flexibility, creativity, or innovation. Much of the time, bureaucratic leaders achieve their position because of their ability to conform to and uphold rules, not because of their qualifications or expertise. This can cause resentment when team members don’t value their expertise or advice.”

[125]10 x Leadership Styles, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (lfhe.ac.uk): Charismatic Leadership – “A charismatic leadership style can resemble transformational leadership because these leaders inspire enthusiasm in their teams and are energetic in motivating others to move forward. This ability to create excitement and commitment is an enormous benefit. The difference between charismatic leaders and transformational leaders lies in their intention. Transformational leaders want to transform their teams and organizations. Charismatic leaders are often focused on themselves, and may not want to change anything. The downside to charismatic leaders is that they can believe more in themselves than in their teams. This can create the risk that a project or even an entire organization might collapse if the leader leaves. A charismatic leader might believe that she can do no wrong, even when others are warning her about the path she’s on; and this feeling of invincibility can ruin a team or an organisation. Also, in the followers’ eyes, success is directly connected to the presence of the charismatic leader. As such, charismatic leadership carries great responsibility, and it needs a long-term commitment from the leader.”

[126]10 x Leadership Styles, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (lfhe.ac.uk): Democratic/Participative Leadership – “Democratic leaders make the final decisions, but they include team members in the decision-making process. They encourage creativity, and team members are often highly engaged in projects and decisions. There are many benefits of democratic leadership. Team members tend to have high job satisfaction and are productive because they’re more involved in decisions. This style also helps develop people’s skills. Team members feel in control of their destiny, so they’re motivated to work hard by more than just a financial reward. Because participation takes time, this approach can slow decision-making, but the result is often good. The approach can be most suitable when working as a team is essential, and when quality is more important than efficiency or productivity. The downside of democratic leadership is that it can often hinder situations where speed or efficiency is essential. For instance, during a crisis, a team can waste valuable time gathering people’s input. Another downside is that some team members might not have the knowledge or expertise to provide high quality input.”

[127]10 x Leadership Styles, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (lfhe.ac.uk): Laissez-Faire Leadership – “This French phrase means “leave it be,” and it describes leaders who allow their people to work on their own. This type of leadership can also occur naturally, when managers don’t have sufficient control over their work and their people. Laissez-faire leaders may give their teams complete freedom to do their work and set their own deadlines. They provide team support with resources and advice, if needed, but otherwise don’t get involved. This leadership style can be effective if the leader monitors performance and gives feedback to team members regularly. It is most likely to be effective when individual team members are experienced, skilled, self-starters. The main benefit of laissez-faire leadership is that giving team members so much autonomy can lead to high job satisfaction and increased productivity. The downside is that it can be damaging if team members don’t manage their time well or if they don’t have the knowledge, skills, or motivation to do their work effectively.

[128]10 x Leadership Styles, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (lfhe.ac.uk): People-Oriented/Relations-Oriented Leadership – “With people-oriented leadership, leaders are totally focused on organizing, supporting, and developing the people on their teams. This is a participatory style and tends to encourage good teamwork and creative collaboration. This is the opposite of task-oriented leadership. People-oriented leaders treat everyone on the team equally. They’re friendly and approachable, they pay attention to the welfare of everyone in the group, and they make themselves available whenever team members need help or advice. The benefit of this leadership style is that people-oriented leaders create teams that everyone wants to be part of. Team members are often more productive and willing to take risks, because they know that the leader will provide support if they need it. The downside is that some leaders can take this approach too far; they may put the development of their team above tasks or project directives.”

[129]10 x Leadership Styles, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (lfhe.ac.uk): Servant Leadership: “This term, created by Robert Greenleaf in the 1970s, describes a leader often not formally recognized as such. When someone at any level within an organization leads simply by meeting the needs of the team, he or she can be described as a ‘servant leader’. Servant leaders often lead by example. They have high integrity and lead with generosity. In many ways, servant leadership is a form of democratic leadership because the whole team tends to be involved in decision making. However, servant leaders often ‘lead from behind’, preferring to stay out of the limelight and letting their team accept recognition for their hard work. Supporters of the servant leadership model suggest that it’s a good way to move ahead in a world where values are increasingly important, and where servant leaders can achieve power because of their values, ideals, and ethics. This is an approach that can help to create a positive corporate culture and can lead to high morale among team members. However, other people believe that in competitive leadership situations, people who practice servant leadership can find themselves left behind by leaders using other leadership styles. This leadership style also takes time to apply correctly: it’s ill-suited in situations where you have to make quick decisions or meet tight deadlines. Although you can use servant leadership in many situations, it’s often most practical in politics, or in positions where leaders are elected to serve a team, committee, organisation, or community.” [Note: The leader is the servant of those he or she leads. The leader is focused on serving rather than being served. The servant leader creates an environment of trust and cooperation, which results in reciprocal service and ultimately higher performance.]

[130]10 x Leadership Styles, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (lfhe.ac.uk): Task-Oriented Leadership – “Task-oriented leaders focus only on getting the job done and can be autocratic. They actively define the work and the roles required, put structures in place, and plan, organize, and monitor work. These leaders also perform other key tasks, such as creating and maintaining standards for performance. The benefit of task-oriented leadership is that it ensures that deadlines are met, and it’s especially useful for team members who don’t manage their time well. However, because task-oriented leaders don’t tend to think much about their team’s well-being, this approach can suffer many of the flaws of autocratic leadership, including causing motivation and retention problems.”

[131]10 x Leadership Styles, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (lfhe.ac.uk): Transactional Leadership – “This leadership style starts with the idea that team members agree to obey their leader when they accept a job. The ‘transaction’ usually involves the organization paying team members in return for their effort and compliance. The leader has a right to ‘punish’ team members if their work doesn’t meet an appropriate standard. Although this might sound controlling and paternalistic, transactional leadership offers some benefits. For one, this leadership style clarifies everyone’s roles and responsibilities. Another benefit is that, because transactional leadership judges team members on performance, people who are ambitious or who are motivated by external rewards – including compensation – often thrive. The downside of this leadership style is that team members can do little to improve their job satisfaction. It can feel stifling, and it can lead to high staff turnover. Transactional leadership is really a type of management, not a true leadership style, because the focus is on short-term tasks. It has serious limitations for knowledge-based or creative work. However, it can be effective in other situations.”

[132]10 x Leadership Styles, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (lfhe.ac.uk): Transformational Leadership – “Transformation leadership is often the best leadership style to use in business situations. Transformational leaders are inspiring because they expect the best from everyone on their team as well as themselves. This leads to high productivity and engagement from everyone in their team. The downside of transformational leadership is that while the leader’s enthusiasm is passed onto the team, he or she can need to be supported by ‘detail people’. That’s why, in many organisations, both transactional and transformational leadership styles are useful. Transactional leaders (or managers) ensure that routine work is done reliably, while transformational leaders look after initiatives that add new value. It’s also important to use other leadership styles when necessary – this will depend on the people you’re leading and the situation that you’re in.”

[136]
Peter .G. Northouse, Leadership Theory and Practice (8th ed.), Sage
Publications, 2019; Terry Bacon, The
Elements of Power: Lessons on Leadership and Influence, American Management
Association, 2011; Ken Downer, Six Power
Sources for Leaders: Which ones do you have?, Rapid Start Leadership.com;
Mark Murphy, You Need to Know the 7 Types
of Power If You Want to Succeed, Forbes, March 19, 2017; Tom Moriarty, 7 sources of leadership power,
PlantServices.com, June 14, 2011; Vivian Giang, The 7 Types of Power that Shape the Workplace, Business Insider,
July 31, 2013.

[138] Dr. Juliet Andrews, Can you assess and manage culture to achieve your strategy?,
LinkedIn, February 22, 2019 (“How do you
shift culture to support customer and business outcomes and create value for
all stakeholders? … Culture is tangible, manageable and malleable. Leaders can
guide and shift culture to improve … compliance … performance”.).

[139]
Eric Sigurdson, Corporate Leadership and
Culture: United Airlines & the ‘Re-accommodated’
Doctor – guiding principles for Boards, C-suite executives, and General Counsel,
Sigurdson Post, May 2, 2017. Also see, John Blakey, Turn the Ship Around – David Marquet: From Commander to Coach,
Challenging Coaching.co.uk, June 18, 2015; L. David Marquet, Turn the Ship Around! A True Story of
Turning Followers into Leaders, 2013; John Clifton, Are You Sure You Have a Great Workplace Culture?, Linkedin.com,
April 27, 2017. Also see, Mirja Telzerow and Ira Gaberman, Cracking the Culture Code: How Organizations Get Where They Want to Go
– given the rapid pace of change in most markets, a high performing culture
aligned with strategy is more important than ever, AT Kearney.com, 2015;
Dr. Catherine McGregor, Is the Key to
Business Success Cracking the Culture Code?, Global Leaders in Law,
Law.com, February 11, 2019; Daniel Coyle, The
Culture Code: The Secrets of Highly Successful Groups, Bantam Books, 2018;
John Kotter and James Heskett, Corporate
Culture and Performance, 1992 (and 2011); Collaborative Leadership: engaging collective intelligence to achieve
results across organisational boundaries, Oxford Leadership, 2016 (“No
single leadership style is appropriate for all situations. In most companies,
both collaborative leadership and command-and-control will likely be needed to
grow sustainable businesses. However, developing leaders with the character and
competencies to lead collaboratively will be an increasingly important priority
as organisations seek to unleash the collective intelligence of all
stakeholders in growing successful businesses…”).

[145]
Mike Kaeding, Great Leadership is about
Influence not Authority, LinkedIn, August 8, 2018.

[146]
Shelley Levitt, Why the Empathetic Leader
is the Best Leader, Success Magazine (success.com), March 15, 2017, citing
Simon Sinek, Leaders Eat Last: Why Some
Team s Pull Together and Others Don’t, Penguin Group, 2014. Also see, Prudy
Gourguechon, Empathy Is An Essential
Leadership Skill – And There’s Nothing Soft About It, Forbes, December 26,
2017 (“Essentially empathy is a neutral data gathering tool that enables you to
understand the human environment within which you are operating in business and
therefore make better predictions, craft better tactics, inspire loyalty and
communicate clearly”.); Harvey Deuschendorf, 5 reasons empathy is the most important leadership skill, Fast
Company, December 6, 2018; Joann Lublin, Companies
Try a New Strategy: Empathy Training, Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2016;
Philip Rucker, Josh Dawsey, and Damian Paletta, ‘Am I out of touch?’: Trump administration struggles to show empathy
for workers, Washington Post, January 24, 2019; Angie Morgan and Courtney
Lynch, How the U.S. Marines Encourage
Service-Based Leadership, Harvard Business Review, February 2, 2017.

[147]Definition of Wicked Problem, Financial Times’ lexicon: “Popularised in the 1973 article ‘Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning’ by Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber, the term wicked problem refers to a complex problem for which there is no simple method of solution. Wicked problems are ones for which there is no clear stopping rule – you cannot say for sure that you are done with the problem. Working on it more might well bring forth a better solution. There is no single right answer and every attempt can matter because it affects the things people depend upon”. Also see, John Camillus, Strategy as a Wicked Problem, Harvard Business Review, May 2008.

[148]
Lars Faeste and Jim Hemerling, Transformation:
Delivering and Sustaining Breakthrough Performance, Boston Consulting
Group, 2016 (page 73-74 “Transformational leadership that is both directive and
inclusive clearly raises the bar for senior executives.“); Jim Hemerling and
Diana Dosik, A Leader’s Guide to
“Always-On” Transformation, Boston Consulting Group, November 9, 2015; Collaborative Leadership: engaging
collective intelligence to achieve results across organisational boundaries,
Oxford Leadership, 2016 (“No single leadership style is appropriate for all
situations. In most companies, both collaborative leadership and
command-and-control will likely be needed to grow sustainable businesses.
However, developing leaders with the character and competencies to lead
collaboratively will be an increasingly important priority as organisations seek
to unleash the collective intelligence of all stakeholders in growing
successful businesses…”).

[151]
Michael Fullan, Leading in a Culture of
Change, Jossey-Bass, 2001.

[152]
Juanita Van Wyk, The Utilisation of a
360° Leadership Assessment Questionnaire as Part of a Leadership Development
Model and Process (Chapter 4: Leadership
Theories and Models), A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree Doctor Philosophiae Psychology, Department of Psychology, Faculty of
Humanities, University of Pretoria, September 2007.

[153]
Juanita Van Wyk, The Utilisation of a
360° Leadership Assessment Questionnaire as Part of a Leadership Development
Model and Process (Chapter 4: Leadership
Theories and Models), A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree Doctor Philosophiae Psychology, Department of Psychology, Faculty of
Humanities, University of Pretoria, September 2007.

[154]
Larry Spears and Michele Lawrence (eds.), Focus
on leadership: Servant-leadership for the twenty-first century, John Wiley
& Sons Inc, 2002 (Introduction, Tracing
the Past, Present, and Future of Servant-Leadership, by Larry C. Spears).
Also see, Larry Spears, Character and
Servant Leadership: Ten Characteristics of Effective, Caring Leaders, The
Journal of Virtues & Leadership, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 2010 (“We are
experiencing a rapid shift in many businesses and not-for-profit organizations—
away from the more traditional autocratic and hierarchical models of leadership
and toward servant leadership as a way of being in relationship with others.
Servant leadership seeks to involve others in decision making, is strongly
based in ethical and caring behavior, and enhances the growth of workers while
improving the caring and quality of organizational life.”).

[157]
Julian Barling, The Science of
Leadership: Lessons from Research for Organizational Leaders, Oxford
University Press, 2014.

[158]
Boris Groysberg, The Seven Skills You
Need to Thrive in the C-Suite, Harvard Business Review, March 18, 2014.

[159]
Bill George, The New 21st
Century Leaders, Harvard Business Review, April 30, 2010.

[160]
See for example: Aaron De Smet,
Michael Lurie, and Andrew St. George, Leading agile transformation: The new
capabilities leaders need to build 21st century organizations, McKinsey
& Company, October 2018.

[161]5 Benefits of Building a Learning Culture,
Inc.com, April 24, 2018; Karmen Blackwood, Benefits of Creating an
Organizational Learning Culture, Business Vancouver (biv.com), September 21,
2014; Mark Lintern, Creating a Learning
Culture is a Must-Have to Gain Competitive Advantage, Oracle.com, March 14,
2014.

[163]
Juliet Bourke and Bernadette Dillon, The
six signature traits of inclusive leadership: thriving in a diverse new world,
Deloitte Insights, April 14, 2016.

[164]
Joseph Rost, Leadership for the
Twenty-First Century, Praeger Publishers, 1993; Mirja Telzerow and Ira
Gaberman, Cracking the Culture Code: How
Organizations Get Where They Want to Go – given the rapid pace of change in
most markets, a high performing culture aligned with strategy is more important
than ever, AT Kearney.com, 2015; Dr. Catherine McGregor, Is the Key to Business Success Cracking the
Culture Code?, Global Leaders in Law, Law.com, February 11, 2019; Daniel
Coyle, The Culture Code: The Secrets of
Highly Successful Groups, Bantam Books, 2018. Also see, John Kotter and
James Heskett, Corporate Culture and
Performance, 1992 (and 2011).

[166]Governing culture: practical
considerations for the board and its committees, EY.com, 2019 (updated).
Also see, EY Center for Board Matters:
The board’s role in corporate culture, EY.com, 2017 (“A company’s culture
is defined and embodied by its leaders”).

[173] Emergent
thinking (or ‘intelligent opportunism’) is the idea that, although strategic
thinking is inherently concerned with shaping and reshaping strategic intent,
there must be room for flexibility – an
integration of both strategic and entrepreneurial thinking (both based on the
theory of ‘effectuation’) – thus allowing leadership and organizations to
consider new opportunities. Emergent thinking is about entrepreneurial
leadership, adopting a flexible approach to strategy in order to take advantage
of emerging strategies and new opportunities (that may be arguably more
relevant in a rapidly changing business environment) and, by being
‘intelligently opportunistic’, can positively influence strategic decision
making for the benefit of the organization. See: Peter Ginter, W. Jack Duncan,
and Linda Swayne, Strategic Management of
Health Care Organizations (8th edition), John Wiley & Sons,
2018; Sebastian Fixson and Jay Rao, Learning
Emergent Strategies through Design Thinking, Design Management Review, Vol.
25, Issue 1, Spring 2014; Antonio Dottore and David Corkindale, Towards a Theory of Business Model
Adaptation, Regional Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 2009: 6th
International Australian Graduate School Entrepreneurship Research Exchange,
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia, 2009; Walter Brenner and Falk
Uebernickel, Design Thinking for
Innovation: Research and Practice, Springer International Publishing, 2016;
Marko Matalamaki, Effectuation, an
emerging theory of entrepreneurship – towards a mature stage of the development,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 24, Issue 4, 2017;
Steven Pattinson, Strategic Thinking:
intelligent opportunism and emergent strategy – the case of Strategic Engineering
Services, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Volume 7,
No. 1, 2016:

“The purpose of strategic thinking, it has been suggested, is to: ‘discover novel, imaginative strategies which can re-write the rules of the competitive game; and to envision potential futures significantly different from the present’ (Heracleous, 1998, p 485). Strategic thinking is an essential prerequisite to firms’ survival (Beaver and Ross, 2000). More recently, strategic thinking has been related to the innovative aspects of a firm’s strategic planning (Harrison and St John, 2013). However, Mintzberg and Waters (1985) recognize that not all strategy is consciously planned, referring to ‘emergent strategy’ that is often developed intuitively by entrepreneurs rather than as the result of rational planning (Hill et al, 2014).

The notion of emergent strategy is closely linked to the theory of ‘effectuation’ (Sarasvathy, 2001): that is, the notion that entrepreneurship is a way of thinking, reasoning and acting that focuses on the identification and exploitation of business opportunities from a broad general perspective, which Sarasvathy (2004) describes as the ‘essential agent’ of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is, therefore, associated with opportunity recognition and has been defined as the: ‘examination of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to create future goods and services are discovered, evaluated and exploited’ (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000, p 218), and the ability to recognize opportunities is widely viewed as a key step in the entrepreneurial process (Tang and Khan, 2007). The purpose of strategic thinking, on the other hand, is to clarify the future, allocate and manage resources and manage change (Thompson et al, 2014). However, to create the most value, entrepreneurial firms also need to act strategically, and this calls for an integration of both entrepreneurial and strategic thinking (Hitt et al, 2001), as Zahra and Nambisan (2012, p 219) explain: ‘Strategic thinking and the entrepreneurial activities … influence one another in a cycle that perpetuates and even sparks innovation’. The question is, how can these two concepts be successfully combined?

The concept of ‘intelligent opportunism’ refers to the idea that, although strategic thinking is inherently concerned with shaping and reshaping strategic intent, there must be room for flexibility (Hamel and Prahalad, 1989), thus allowing entrepreneurs to consider new opportunities. Intelligent opportunism involves entrepreneurs being open to new experiences that allow them to take advantage of emergent strategies that are, arguably, more relevant in a rapidly changing business environment and can be considered a form of ‘opportunistic’ strategy (Liedtka, 1998). Intelligent opportunism therefore acts as a locus for combining opportunity recognition and emergent strategies, as Liedtka (1998, p 123) explains: ‘within this [type of] intent-driven focus, there must be room for intelligent opportunism that not only furthers intended strategy but that also leave open the possibility of new strategies emerging’. Intelligent opportunism is about adopting a flexible approach to strategy in order to take advantage of emerging strategies and new opportunities and, by being ‘intelligently opportunistic’, entrepreneurial leaders can influence strategic decision making (Haycock, 2012).”

Also see: Refilwe
Mauda, The influence and causation
strategies on corporate innovation in conditions of increased industry
uncertainty, A research report re Master of Business Administration
requirements, Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of Pretoria,
January 13, 2015; Laura Paulina Mathiaszyk, Corporate
Effectuation: Effectual Strategy for Corporate Management, Inaugural
Dissertation for Doctor rerum oeconomicarum, Faculty of Economics, Schumpeter
School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, June 2017; Jeroen Oude
Luttikhuis, Effectuation and Causation:
The Effect of “Entrepreneurial Experience” and “Market Uncertainty”: An
Analysis of Causation and Effectuation in Business Plans, Master Thesis
(MSc Business Administration), May 20, 2014;
Andre Hermes, Causation and
effectuation vs. analysis and intuition: conceptual parallels in the context of
entrepreneurial decision-making, 7th IBA Bachelor Thesis
Conference, July 1, 2016 (Faculty of Behavioural, Management, and Social
Sciences).

[174]
Marc Dellaert and Sergey Davydov, Influencing:
The Skill of Persuasion – building commitment and getting results, Center
for Creative Leadership, 2017. Also see, Amy Blaschka, The One In-Demand Soft Skill That Many Leaders (Still) Get Wrong,
Forbes, February 11, 2019; Robert Cialdini, Influence:
The Psychology of Persuasion, William Morrow and Company Inc, 1993.

[175] Martine
Hass and Mark Mortensen, The Secrets of
Great Teamwork, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 94, No. 6, 2016; Stephen
Heidari-Robinson and Suzanne Heywood, Getting
Reorgs Right, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 94, No. 11, 2016; Peter Ginter,
W. Jack Duncan, and Linda Swayne, Strategic
Management of Health Care Organizations (8th edition), John
Wiley & Sons, 2018; Robert Anderson and William Adams, Scaling Leadership: Building Organizational
Capability and Capacity to Create Outcomes that Matter Most, John Wiley
& Sons Inc, 2019. Also see, Mirja Telzerow and Ira Gaberman, Cracking the Culture Code: How Organizations
Get Where They Want to Go – given the rapid pace of change in most markets, a
high performing culture aligned with strategy is more important than ever,
AT Kearney.com, 2015; Dr. Catherine McGregor, Is the Key to Business Success Cracking the Culture Code?, Global
Leaders in Law, Law.com, February 11, 2019; Daniel Coyle, The Culture Code: The Secrets of Highly Successful Groups, Bantam
Books, 2018; John Kotter and James Heskett, Corporate
Culture and Performance, 1992 (and 2011).

[182]
Steve Moss, When Change Comes from the
Outside, LinkedIn, August 13, 2018 (“You may have a strategy, but in a 2013
Katzenbach Center study, it was shown that 64% of global senior executives saw
culture as more critical to the success of change management than strategy or
operating model.”). Also see, Mirja Telzerow and Ira Gaberman, Cracking the Culture Code: How Organizations
Get Where They Want to Go – given the rapid pace of change in most markets, a
high performing culture aligned with strategy is more important than ever,
AT Kearney.com, 2015; Dr. Catherine McGregor, Is the Key to Business Success Cracking the Culture Code?, Global
Leaders in Law, Law.com, February 11, 2019; Daniel Coyle, The Culture Code: The Secrets of Highly Successful Groups, Bantam
Books, 2018; John Kotter and James Heskett, Corporate
Culture and Performance, 1992 (and 2011); EY Center for Board Matters: The board’s role in corporate culture,
EY.com, 2017 (“A company’s culture is defined and embodied by its leaders”).

[183]The Twin Threats of Aging and Automation,
March & McLennan Companies Global Risk Center, Mercer and Oliver Wyman,
2018; Bartleby, The robots coming for your
job, The Economist, July 12, 2018; Paul Rawlinson, Will lawyers become extinct in the age of automation?, World
Economic Forum (weforum.org), March 29, 2018; Prachi Juneja, Strategy Implementation – Meaning and Steps in Implementing a Strategy,
Management Study Guide.com; Chris Bradley, How
biases, politics and egos trump good strategy: when creating a strategy for
your organization there are many obstacles. It’s important to know what they
are and how to get around them, McKinsey & Company (mckinsey.com),
January 18, 2018; Scott Kirsner, The
Biggest Obstacles to Innovation in Large Companies, Harvard Business
Review, July 30, 2018; Dan Cohen, The
Heart of Change Field Guide: Tools and Tactics for Leading Change in Your
Organization, Deloitte Development, 2005; John Kotter, Leading Change, Harvard Business Review Press, 1996 (new preface,
2012); John Kotter and Dan Cohen, The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How
People Change Their Organization, Deloitte Consulting, 2002; ; Charles Hill and
Gareth Jones, Strategic Management
Theory: An Integrated Approach (10th Edition), Houghton Mifflin Company,
South-Western Cengage Learning Publisher, 2013; Fionnuala Courtney, 6 Steps to Effective Organizational Change
Management, Pulse Learning.com, June 2016; Brent Gleeson, Tips for Managing Fear Through
Organizational Change, Forbes, December 9, 2015; Robert Tanner, Five Strategies for Managing the Fear of
Change, Management is a Journey.com, May 12, 2018; F. John Reh, Managing Change: Managing People’s Fear,
The Balance Careers.com, October 13, 2017.

[184]
DeAnne Aguirre and Michah Alpern, 10
Principles of Leading Change Management, Strategy & Business, June 6,
2014; David Wilkinson, How to prevent
brain drain – lessons for every organisation, Oxford Review, June 29, 2018
(LinkedIn); Sabine Cosack, Matthew Guthridge, and Emily Lawson, Retaining key employees in times of change,
Mckinsey Quarterly, August 2010; David Parnell, The Battle For Talent is Disrupting the Business of Law, Law.com,
August 15, 2018.

[185] Jack
Fuller, Michael Jacobides, and Martin Reeves, The Myths and Realities of Business Ecosystems, MIT Sloan
Management Review, February 25, 2019; Tristan Boutros, The Organization as an Ecosystem, bpm.com, November 11, 2014; Business Ecosystem, Investopedia.com.

[193]
Clayton M. Christensen is the Kim B. Clark Professor of Business Administration
at the Harvard Business School; and is regarded as one of the world’s top
experts on innovation and growth. Harvard Business School Professor Clayton
Christensen was named the World’s Most Influential Business Management Thinker
in 2011 and 2013.

[194]
Clayton Christensen, After 25 years
studying innovation, here is what I have learned, LinkedIn, January 18,
2019. Also see, Clayton Christensen, Efosa Ojomo, and Karen Dillon, The Prosperity Paradox: How Innovation Can
Lift Nations Out of Poverty, Harper Collins Publishers, 2019.

“You may have excellent technical skills. You may even be innovative and visionary. But if you don’t know how to engage people, you’re toast.

The best leaders (regardless of title or lack thereof) have good people skills. They talk well. They listen well. They offer feedback in ways that inspire improvement rather than resistance. They welcome feedback, and accept it without excuses.”

[196]From C-Suite to Digital Suite: How to Lead Through Digital Transformation,
Right Management Manpower Group, 2017.

The Sigurdson Post was developed for the legal profession, business, political decision makers, and the general public to engage and inform and provide a framework for reflection. Our goal is to provide a publication that rewards our readers for their time.

Thought of the Day

Loading Quotes...

This publication is designed to sensitize the reader to matters of general interest relating to recent developments in the law. Legal counsel should be consulted with regard to specific application of the information on a case-by-case basis. The contributors and editors assume no liability whatsoever in connection with the use of information contained in this publication.